PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].

STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH.

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table,—Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously enquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Ascot District Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords].
Derwent Valley Water Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Consumption Goods (Export)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a list of commodities, produced in this country and exported abroad, which are in short supply for home consumption.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Owing to the heavy demands on labour and materials for the war effort, such a list as my hon. Friend has in mind would include practically all consumption goods.

Mr. Davies: Can my right hon. Friend clear away the point that occurs to a lot of people that we are exporting commodities we could do with ourselves in this country?

Mr. Dalton: Criticism generally runs along the other line, that we ought to be exporting more than we are doing.

Mr. Davies: It depends on the point of view.

Mr. Dalton: As the House knows, I have had, much against my inclination, to restrict exports very severely and to limit them to the requirements of our Allies, and of those parts of the Empire which depend on us for supplies.

Stockings (N.A.A.F.I. Canteen Workers)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will accord to girls working in N.A.A.F.I. canteens the same right as he has accorded to hospital nurses in respect of extra coupons for the purchase of stockings.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, I regret that, in view of the shortage of supplies, I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Bartlett: Is it not a fact that these girls are very much in the same position as nurses, in that they are both in civilian categories and that the wear and tear of stockings must be very great in both cases, and will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider it?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, the ground of giving a concession to nurses was that, in their case, it is very important on hygienic grounds that they should have a very good supply of stockings. I should be only too delighted to make the concession which the hon. Member suggests, but I could not possibly discriminate in favour of this particular group of people. It would mean opening the door very wide indeed to all sorts of other people, though I should be very glad to do this if supply conditions permitted.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWEDISH BALL BEARINGS (EXPORTS TO GERMANY)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he can now make a statement on the results of negotiations regarding exports of ball bearings from Sweden to Germany.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): The negotiations in question were with the Swedish S.K.F. Company. An understanding was reached regarding the Company's export policy. For obvious reasons the details cannot be disclosed.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that he has put a stop


to the delivery of these ball-bearings to Germany?

Mr. Foot: I did not say that. I do not think that I can add to the answer I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN NATIONALS (BANK DEPOSITS, SPAIN)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he has any information regarding the transfer of funds, shares, jewels, etc., owned by German nationals to Spanish banks.

Mr. Foot: For reasons which I am sure the House will understand, I am not prepared to reveal the extent to which we have obtained information regarding deposits by German nationals in the banks of neutral countries.

Mr. Edwards: Can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm the recent Moscow report that the factory which developed the flying bomb was transferred to Spain?

Mr. Foot: That is an entirely different question. This refers to deposits by German nationals in Spanish banks.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY-OCCUPIED COUNTRIES (LOOTED PROPERTY)

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to property, other than gold in barrels, looted by German nationals in occupied countries and deposited in neutral countries.

Mr. Foot: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Inter-Allied Declaration of 5th January, 1943, to which His Majesty's Government were a party. It will be remembered that the Declaration contained a formal warning to all concerned, and in particular to persons in neutral countries, that the Allied Governments intend to do their utmost to defeat the methods of dispossession practised by the Axis Governments against the countries and peoples who have been so wantonly assaulted and despoiled.

Mr. Edwards: May I thank the Minister for his unusually informative reply?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Wounded Personnel (Temporary or Acting Rank)

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to ensure that officers, non-commissioned officers and men in the Army who are wounded shall continue to receive the pay and allowance applicable to the rank which they were holding at the time they were wounded; and further, that in the event of their having to be pensioned, they shall be paid the pension due to that rank and not to a lower rank.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): Under the present rules officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers wounded in action retain their temporary or acting rank as the case may be for three months while they are absent from duty. I am now considering whether these rules should be changed. The question of disability pensions is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, but I understand that under the Pensions Regulations the rate of pension is normally determined by the paid rank held at the time of the wound.

Sir A. Southby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the first part of his answer certainly will give great satisfaction in the Army?

Composite Units (Italian Officers)

Mr. Kendall: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) why instructions have been sent to British officers in charge of Italian labour battalions that British ranks should salute when in camp, as a matter of courtesy, the Italian officers now posted to these battalions; and will he consider countermanding these instructions in view of the resentment felt among the British ranks affected;
(2) why a recommendation has been sent to British officers in charge of Italian labour battalions that the British officers' mess should be made available to Italian officers; is he aware that great resentment is felt among the British officers who are forced to comply with this request; and will he consider countermanding this recommendation.

Sir J. Grigg: These are composite units consisting of Italians who have volunteered to co-operate in the Allied war


effort and some British officers and noncommissioned officers. The British and Italians work together and in these circumstances the action taken seems to me unobjectionable. I have not heard that it has caused any resentment.

Mr. Kendall: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of British officers and other ranks not complying with these orders, they will be subject to reduction in the ranks and subsequent loss of pay and allowances?

Sir J. Grigg: I cannot answer hypothetical questions.

War Correspondents ("Daily Worker")

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that Kemsley Newspapers, Limited, were recently fined £100 for wilfully publishing information which might be useful to the enemy, without forfeiting their right to be represented by war correspondents having access to many military secrets, he will reconsider his decision not to accredit a "Daily Worker" war correspondent.

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.

Mr. Driberg: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the representations made to him by many hon. Members of this House, including Conservatives and Liberals, and by many trades unions, including many who do not sympathise with Communism at all?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the denial of a war correspondent to this paper is not only a reflection on the paper itself, but that it is a slur on the members of the National Union of Journalists, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish for; and cannot he reconsider the matter on those grounds?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will refer to my original answer, he will find the reasons for the decision fully set out.

Mr. Gallacher: As there is nothing in that answer to justify political discrimination, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

Sir J. Grigg: It is made clear in the original answer that the decision was the considered decision of the Government.

Mr. Shinwell: What other reasons have induced the Government to refuse this newspaper facilities for having a war correspondent abroad?

Sir J. Grigg: The reasons are all set out in my answer of 18th January.

Mr. Shinwell: May we know what they are? It is a very important matter. There is plenty of time, as there are very few questions on the Paper.

Sir J. Grigg: The question was answered at considerable length.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not this political prejudice of the worst possible kind, if it is true, as represented in the Question, and not denied by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Kemsley Newspapers were themselves fined for wilfully providing information to the enemy and yet can have correspondents abroad? Why interfere with this principle?

Mr. Reakes: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in deference to the wishes expressed by hon. Members, give a sensible reply to this Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has"]—a just and fair one, and a logical reason why this paper should be treated differently from others?

Sir J. Grigg: If the hon. Member will refer to the very full answer on 18th January, he will find the logical reason.

Mr. Bowles: Is it not a fact that the Beaverbrook Press have eleven correspondents abroad?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In view of the fact that six months have elapsed since the right hon. Gentleman originally replied, does he not think that this might warrant some further consideration?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Why these short, negative replies? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman open himself a little bit and let us see what he has actually in his mind? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman quite plainly, Is it not true that he is inspired personally by political prejudice?

Mr. Speaker: rose——

Mr. Shinwell: Will not he answer that question?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member is being personal and I cannot allow that question.

Mr. Shinwell: With great respect, Mr. Speaker. As long as these questions are within the Rules of Order, I shall ask them.

Mr. Speaker: That Question did not appear to me within the Rules of Order.

Mr. Driberg: In view of the very unsatisfactory and curt nature of the right hon. Gentleman's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Officers' Kits (Thefts)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the pilfering of the kits of officers killed in action is still continuing unabated; whether he will state the persons who are responsible for the custody of such kits, either in the theatre of war or whilst in transit, up to the time they arrive in this country; and whether any steps have been taken to bring to justice the perpetrators of these thefts.

Sir J. Grigg: I regret that complaints of such pilfering are still being received. All overseas Commands have again been urged to take all possible measures to prevent pilfering and an explanation of the proper procedure for safeguarding kit and personal effects of casualties is being circulated to all units. But as explained to my hon. and gallant Friend on 21st March the real difficulty in this matter is that there are not enough troops which can be spared to act as guards. Offenders who are caught are, of course, punished. I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT in answer to the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Question.

Following is the statement:

The following are responsible for the custody of such kit at various stages on the way from the unit to the next-of-kin in this country:

(a) The unit to which the individual belongs for collection and forwarding to G.H.Q. 2nd Echelon.
(b) The Movement or Postal unit for custody of belongings while in transit to G.H.Q. 2nd Echelon.
(c) G.H.Q. 2nd Echelon until belongings are handed over to the Military Forwarding Officer (kits) or Army Post Office (personal effects) for despatch to the United Kingdom.
(d) The Military Forwarding Officer, Liverpool for the custody of belongings of officers until he despatches them to legal representatives of deceased, under instructions from the War Office.

Dependants' Allowances

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on increases in dependants' allowances.

Sir J. Grigg: I am afraid not.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Foreign Secretary's interpretation of "shortly" was three days and that his interpretation has already been three weeks?

Sir J. Grigg: It is not my interpretation at all; I am not the sole agent in this matter.

Miss Ward: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman exercise a little pressure?

A.T.S. Officers (Domestic Allowance)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the payment of a domestic allowance on similar terms to Army officers to women officers of the A.T.S.

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir.

Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Press announcement in favour of these allowances being granted to the A.T.S. has already appeared?

Sir J. Grigg: That announcement was certainly premature, and probably inaccurate.

Absence from Duty (Acting Rank)

Mr. Gretton: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will issue instructions that in the event of a change in rank involving a reduction in pay, that such reduction shall not become operative before the man concerned is notified in Orders.

Sir J. Grigg: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind other ranks absent from duty on account of sickness. The rule is that they drop acting rank on the first day of absence, but if they return within 21 days it may be restored retrospectively. To save unnecessary notifications in orders, the commanding officer is allowed to defer any notification until the man has been absent for 21 days. I am considering whether any change should be made in these rules.

Paliamentary Franchise (Register)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information as to the number of soldiers now serving in the East who have completed A.F.B2626.

Sir J. Grigg: I have not yet received any reports showing how the scheme is going in commands overseas.

Mr. Dugdale: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to ask for such a report?

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. I have done so.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that I have a letter here in my hand from a member of the Communist Party fighting in the East; and will the Minister say whether this man should not be withdrawn immediately, as he might give away information?

Relatives (Travel Warrants)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for War, if he will increase the facilities for the visiting of wounded men by the next-of-kin at the expense of the State.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 21st March.

Sir I. Fraser: As that reply was not very helpful, would not my right hon. Friend indicate that he will be more sympathetic in this matter, particularly where soldiers are detained in hospital, who have been out of this country for many years?

Sir J. Grigg: I indicated then that if a soldier is dangerously ill, free warrants are provided. If he is not dangerously ill his relatives can travel to visit him at concession rates.

Lieut.-Colonel Cyril Rocke

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he proposes to take in regard to Lieut.-Colonel Cyril Rocke, late Irish Guards, and now in Rome.

Sir J. Grigg: The military authorities concerned have been informed that Colonel Rocke was known to be a confirmed admirer of Mussolini and was, at one time, a paid propagandist on behalf

of Italy They have been instructed to collect all available evidence regarding Colonel Rocke's activities, and to report what action they have taken.

Sir A. Evans: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he has any information as to whether this officer became an Italian citizen by naturalisation?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir, I have none yet.

Mr. Shinwell: Could my right hon. Friend, at the same time, give us a little more information about other admirers of Mussolini?

Mr. Ellis Smith: Can we be informed how long this man had been serving in this rank during the war?

Sir J. Grigg: He has not been serving in this rank during the war. He is retired and his retired pay has been suspended since 31st March, 1940.

Personnel, Malta (Home Postings)

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant the same privilege of home leave to the soldiers who served throughout the siege of Malta as has been granted to the members of the R.A.F., as such leave would be highly appreciated by these brave men.

Sir J. Grigg: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the rule whereby Army personnel who have been abroad for five years are posted to the Home Establishment. This rule applies to all stations overseas, and I regret that I do not see my way to giving special treatment to personnel who have served in any one station.

Dr. Little: Will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider his decision, in view of the fact that such a concession would give great satisfaction to these men who have suffered and have borne the heat and burden of the day?

Sir J. Grigg: I think my hon. Friend must be aware that a great many of the troops in Malta have already been transferred to the Home Establishment.

Mr. Burke: Is the Minister considering the possibility of reducing the period abroad for all branches of the Forces?

Sir J. Grigg: I am only too glad to do all I possibly can. I wish more were possible.

Absence Without Leave (Wife's Allowance)

Mr Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for War why a wife's family allowance and war service grant are automatically stopped if her husband is absent from his regiment without leave for more than seven days; and whether he will adopt some procedure to lessen the hardship thus inflicted upon a guiltless third party.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 18th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR (PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are being made to give prisoners of war an opportunity of registering as electors.

Sir J. Grigg: No arrangements have been made and I am afraid that it will be impossible to make any as long as the prisoners remain in enemy hands. I am, however, considering the question further to see if there is any method of overcoming the natural and very serious obstacles.

Mr. Bellenger: While gratified with the latter part of my right hon. Friend's answer, may I ask him if he is not aware that it would be comparatively simple to send these forms out to prisoners of war just as they are being sent to men overseas?

Sir J. Grigg: It would interfere with their ordinary mail and I do not think the prisoners would like that. The Germans will not admit an unlimited amount of mail. Might I, with respect, invite the hon. Member to apply his argument to the case of Japan?

Sir Herbert Williams: Could they not be registered in the constituency in which their next-of-kin live?

Sir J. Grigg: They would have to appoint a proxy in that case, and that would mean communicating with them. It would be no good communicating with Japan.

Mr. Bowles: Could not all the soldiers be registered in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency?

Lieut.-Colonel Thornton - Kemsley: Could they not be registered through the Records Office at their known addresses?

Sir J. Grigg: This is a matter which I am afraid cannot be dealt with fully in reply to Parliamentary Questions. I understand there is a desire for a deputation of Members of Parliament interested in the general Question, and that would provide a suitable opportunity to deal with the matter more fully.

Mr. Shinwell: Are the Government afraid of the way the men may vote at the next Election?

Sir J. Grigg: Not at all.

Mr. John Dugdale: While the right hon. Gentleman says correctly that it may be, difficult to contact prisoners in Japan, is that any excuse for not contacting those in Germany.

Sir J. Grigg: I have said there are serious difficulties and those, too, I am perfectly willing to explain on the occasion of the deputation to which I have referred.

Mr. Driberg: Can we take it that if prisoners are repatriated at some future date, shortly before an Election, they will not be debarred from voting because they have not filled up the form now?

Sir J. Grigg: That certainly is a reasonable thing to ask, and I think everything should be done to ensure that they can vote.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMIES, ITALY (CASUALTIES)

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: asked the Prime Minister the number of casualties sustained by the British and Imperial Forces in Italy since 12th February, 1944, and since 3rd September, 1943, respectively, up to the fall of Rome.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Yes, Sir. On 16th February, in reply to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Toxteth (Major Buchan-Hepburn), I informed the House that up to 12th February the following casualties had been sustained by the British Armies in Italy, including Dominion and Indian troops:


Killed
…
…
7,635


Wounded
…
…
23,283


Missing
…
…
5,708


Total
…
…
36,626




Between that date, and the entry into Rome these Forces sustained the following further casualties:


Killed
…
…
6,696


Wounded
…
…
24,683


Missing
…
…
5,117


Total
…
…
36,496


Our total casualties, therefore, from our landing in Italy to the fall of Rome amount, I grieve to say, to


Killed
…
…
14,331


Wounded
…
…
47,966


Missing
…
…
10,825


Total
…
…
73,122


I should explain that these figures are for Army casualties only, Navy and Air Force losses being excluded, because this is the basis on which the earlier figures were given in February, it having been found impossible to give a figure for the Other two Services exclusively relating to operations in Italy, as distinct from the other operations of the Navy in the Mediterranean, and of the Air Force over the Mediterranean, Germany, Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD PEACE (UNITED NATIONS, CONSULTATIONS)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended that all the Allies are to consider a world plan for post-war peace; and whether he will give an assurance that any such plan will be laid before the British Parliament for discussion before it is finally adopted.

The Prime Minister: It is our hope that the arrangements to be made for the maintenance of international peace and security after the war will be the subject of consultation at the appropriate time between all the United Nations. The reply to the second part of the Question is "Yes."

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be good enough, with his great power and influence, to see that the British Parliament is not under a disadvantage in discussing these problems, by reason of what is transpiring in Washington?

The Prime Minister: Certainly, Sir. I do not see why the British Parliament should be under any disadvantage compared with any other Legislature.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR PENSIONS

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will find time for discussion of the Motion on War Pensions standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale and 161 other hon. Members.

[That this House, being of the opinion that no widow or child of a member of the forces should be financially penalised on account of the death or disablement on service of a husband or father, considers that pensions payable to or in respect of them should be at least equal to the allowances they received before the death or disablement of the member of the forces, and accordingly it calls upon His Majesty's Government to reconsider the proposals for war pensions contained in Command Paper 6521 with a view to removing the inequalities which they create.]

The Prime Minister: I regret that the state of business will not permit of the allocation of a day for the discussion of this Motion, but if there is a general desire the Ministry of Pensions Vote could be put down for a Supply day. This would give my hon. and gallant Friend an opportunity of speaking on the subject of his Motion.

Mr. Bellenger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is another Motion on the Order Paper, embodying the substance of the Motion in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), and that if a Debate should take place the House would probably prefer it to be on a wider issue than that of the Ministry of Pensions?

[That this House, while welcoming the improvements in service pay, allowances and pensions outlined in the White Paper Cmd. 6521, is of the opinion, that a Select Committee of this House should be appointed to consider anomalies and inequalities which the White Paper fails to remedy.]

The Prime Minister: A Supply day is a day very appropriate for discussion of such a matter. The usual practice is to move a reduction in the salary of the


Minister in question and the Debate is quite untrammelled. Supply days exist for this very purpose. In all parts of the House we endeavour to collect what is the wish of the House. I have never known a Government which desired to prevent any topic being raised on a Supply day, provided it was concerned with the expenditure of public money.

Sir I. Fraser: In view of the feeling in all quarters in the House that there are matters relating to the Ministry of Pensions which, perhaps, should be discussed before we rise for the Summer Recess, would my right hon. Friend ask the Leader of the House if he could make the necessary arrangement?

The Prime Minister: I have already said that we are quite ready to give a Supply day, when the matter has been arranged through the usual channels.

Mr. Tinker: Will it be in Order to discuss parents' pensions at the same time?

The Prime Minister: I have not consulted the Clerks at the Table, but I imagine that it would be possible to deal with all aspects of the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Research (Financial Assistance)

Professor A. V. Hill: asked the Lord President of the Council to which of the three bodies under his direction, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Research Council, should application be directed for financial assistance to research on the following subjects: marine biology, freshwater biology, ecology, genetics, cytology, vital statistics, biophysics, general physiology, experimental psychology; and can such assistance be given to promote fundamental research in these fields, or is it limited to specific projects which can be shown to have practical application to industry, medicine or agriculture.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): Where there is no indication to the contrary in a particular case, it would be appropriate to address applications in the first instance to the Agricultural Research Council if they relate to ecology, genetics (other than specifically human), or plant cytology, and to the Medical Research Council if they relate to human

genetics, vital statistics, biophysics, general physiology, or experimental psychology. The Development Commission is the body responsible for recommending advances from the Development Fund for marine biology and freshwater biology in relation to the fisheries. Arrangements exist between the different bodies whereby applications can be transferred from one to the other so that they can be dealt with in the most suitable manner. The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Research Council aid specific projects for fundamental research when further knowledge is required in the fields for which they are responsible, even if it cannot be shown that such researches have an immediate application to industry, medicine, or agriculture.

Sir H. Williams: Would the Department also consider an application for assisting research, into elementary economics by the White Paper department of His Majesty's Government?

Ex-Service Small Traders (Loans)

Mr. Doland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if, in view of the passing by the House of Representatives in the U.S.A. of G.I. Bill of Rights, providing for ex-Servicemen a guarantee of 50 per cent. on loans up to £1,000 at four per cent. interest to help establish a business after the war, he will inform the House what provision he proposes to make of a similar character for those small traders who have lost their business through the war and who wish to start again when they return.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The whole question of the measures to be adopted to assist the resettlement of ex-Servicemen on de-mobilisation is under examination, and I am not in a position to make a specific statement at present.

Mr. Doland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in February, 1919, a Department was set up for this purpose? Could not something similar be done now for the men who return?

Sir J. Anderson: The position is that, in the view of the Government, it would be premature at the present moment to make a statement on these matters, all of which hang together.

Mr. Mathers: Is not the Minister aware that there are quite a few ex-Servicemen in the market for employment, and requiring to be settled. Cannot an experiment be made now, with small numbers, as against the day when there will be many?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question on the Order Paper.

Sir Richard Acland: Is there any real intention of introducing legislation on this matter before a General Election takes place?

Sir J. Anderson: I have nothing to say on that.

Miss Ward: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that this is a matter on which the Government should have made up their minds long ago?

Sir J. Anderson: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a definite statement on that point, and said he considered that this was not the time to talk about demobilisation.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House a reason for the reluctance of the Government to disclose their plans, not for general demobilisation, but in connection with other matters which would bring great comfort to the men now fighting, who are very eager to know whether the Government mean to do anything?

Sir J. Anderson: I think the hon. Member will realise that the Question put to me was on a specific financial point. The general question is hardly one for me.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that it is the Government's policy to crush out all individual enterprise, and that they have already taken a decision in that direction?

Mr. De la Bére: Is not the matter urgent, vital and dominant?

Income Tax, Child Allowance (Apprentices)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the difficulty in obtaining apprentices to various trades; and whether he will allow apprentices to earn a larger sum than 5s. per week without depriving their parents of child's allowances for Income Tax purposes.

Sir J. Anderson: With regard to the first part of the Question, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is not aware of any particular difficulties other than the general shortage of young persons. As regards the second part of the Question, the grant of child allowance in respect of apprentices is governed by Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1938, and I regret I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion for an alteration of the limit laid down in Sub-section 1 (b) of that Section.

Mr. Bartlett: Is it not a fact that in view of the general shortage of labour it becomes increasingly difficult to get apprentices, and is there not a danger that this country will thereby lose the technical skill for which it has been so rightly famous in the past?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think that a change of the kind suggested by the hon. Member would make any practical difference.

PUBLIC PETITIONS (KING'S RECOMMENDATION)

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the House will allow me to make a short statement in connection with Public Petitions: In my statement of Tuesday, 23rd May, about the desirability of a relaxation of the Rule requiring the King's recommendation in connection with Public Petitions, I informed the House that I would wait for a short period before giving a final Ruling in order to allow any hon. Member who wished to make any observation to communicate with me. I have received no observation, and I propose in future to apply the Ruling according to the terms stated on 23rd May.
I take this opportunity of calling the attention of hon. Members to paragraph 8 of the Special Report of the Select Committee on Public Petitions, presented on 24th May, and to remind them that it is their duty in presenting a Public Petition to make sure as far as possible that it is in Order, and that they can seek advice on this matter from the Clerk of Public Petitions.

BILL PRESENTED

HERRING INDUSTRY BILL,

"to authorise the giving of further financial assistance to the Herring Industry Board and to herring fishermen and per-


sons desiring to engage in the herring industry, to amend the Herring Industry, Acts, 1935 and 1938, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented by Mr. T. Johnston, supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. R. S. Hudson, Colonel Llewellin, Mr. Dalton, Mr. Ernest Brown and the Lord Advocate, to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (WAR- TIME REGISTRATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I would like to apologise to the House for having to amend the original Act so soon after the House was good enough to pass it last year, but circumstances have arisen which make it necessary. We have found that there are imperfections, which I will detail, not so much in the Act itself, as in its administration. In connection with this real difficulties are being experienced. I take it that the House generally, having passed the Act of last year, will agree with me that it is very desirable that it should work. None of us can be proud of the imperfection of electoral registration at the present time, under which, when by-elections take place, a very substantial number of people, both men and women, who ought to be able to vote, are unable to do so because of the staleness of the electoral register. I think therefore that everybody will agree that there is an onus on Parliament to see that in by-elections the poll shall be as representative as the electoral arrangements can enable it to be.
The purpose of the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act was to provide an effective electoral registration system, despite the difficulties brought about by war-time circumstances and conditions. It provided for the introduction of the continuous registration system recommended by the Departmental Committee on Electoral Machinery. It is fair to say that the Committee had not contemplated that the system of continuous electoral registration would apply to by-elections—they were concerned with General Elections, not only post-war elections but also war-time General Elections—and they made recommendations whereby the electoral machinery would work for them. But they had not taken into account by-elections, and indeed they were not asked to do so. The Government were, however, anxious that by-elections should be fought on a representative and

up-to-date register, and they provided accordingly in the Bill, which Parliament was good enough to accept. Certain practical difficulties have, however, arisen which were not foreseen in November last, and, if these are not overcome, I have to confess that the new system cannot be brought into operation at an early date.
Under the Act of 1943, the qualification for entry on the civilian register is continuous residence in the constituency for not less than two months prior to the last day of the month before that in which the election is initiated, and by "initiated" I mean, in respect of a by-election, the date on which the writ is received. If the date were 27th June, the civilians qualified to vote under the Act would be those resident in the constituency for not less than two months before 31st May, that being the last day of the month preceding the date of the initiation of the by-election. The Act also provides that on removal to another constituency, a civilian retains his qualification to vote in the first constituency until he acquires a fresh qualification elsewhere. Discussions have recently taken place with representative clerks who are electoral registration officers, and they have shown that many of them —I agree largely in counties in England and Wales—are unable to cope with the work entailed owing to war-time difficulties. Local government has lost to the Forces many experienced officers needed to organise and supervise the complicated clerical work. Secondly, extra clerical assistance is most difficult to obtain. In individual offices the number required may be few. The estimate for England and Wales is about 1,200 clerical assistants to do the routine work under supervision, but also—this perhaps is even more difficult—400 additional persons competent to instruct and supervise in this work, which must be accurately done; otherwise there would be, quite properly, loud complaints as to the imperfection of the official by-election machinery. Thirdly, to recruit and to train these extra officers would be a long and rather difficult business.
The clerks concerned are, I am sure, very anxious to help. In fact local government officers during the war have had to carry an increasing burden of new duties in which they were not hitherto experienced, and I think the adaptability of the officers and staffs, and indeed the members, of our local authorities, in all


these war-time activities, commands the admiration and appreciation of us all. There is, therefore, no lack of good will. They are anxious to do their best. But some of them, after going exhaustively into the matter, assure me—and I have felt after careful consideration that I must accept their assurance—that they can see no method of coping with the work in the near future. Under the existing legislation, many of them fear a serious breakdown, due to errors and omissions by untrained clerical assistants, and, of course, a breakdown in one area will affect others, through removals, owing to the necessity to trace cases of removal through until registration obtains in the constituency to which the elector has removed. Fixing the appointed day, therefore, under the Act, which I am sorry I have not yet done—I had hoped to do it well before now—must wait until arrangements are adequate, not in a limited number of constituencies but in all of them, because, unhappily, I do not know—nobody knows —where by-elections are likely to occur. They may occur in any part of the country. Therefore the machine should be ready to function over the country as a whole, so that wherever a by-election may occur the machine will be ready to go ahead and the elector will be able to do his duty if he wants to do so. I am faced, therefore, with the situation that under the legislation as it stands, I should have to postpone the appointed day indefinitely, and the purpose of the amending Bill is to meet this difficult situation, which I very much regret.
The Bill does two things. It suspends the requirement of two months' continuous residence and substitutes a provision that a person shall be entitled to be included on the electoral register for civilians if he is registered in the national register, as residing in the constituency on the qualifying date. I know that Members in certain parts of the House are rather averse from abolishing, for the time being, this qualifying period. I sympathise with them. I like some attachment to the soil on the part of the electors in a constituency, and I do not, in any way, dispute the sentiment of those who feel rather unhappy on this point. But I have taken the greatest pains to see that the Bill is temporary, and that it will be brought to an end as soon as possible. Secondly, the Bill, partly in consequence of the first

point—this is one of the ways of trying to meet the objections to it—puts back the qualifying date by one month, so that it will be a month earlier than it would have been under the Act. If my memory serves me rightly, it will be the end of the month next but one before the date of initiation. Anyway it will be a month further back in time.
This scheme will very much simplify the work of the electoral registration officers in a number of ways. Having mastered them reasonably well myself after much patience and industry I could describe these ways to the House, but I should bore the House and I am not sure that my clarity would be good enough to make the House understand what I was seeking to make it understand. I can say broadly that the existence of the two months' qualifying period in itself involves a considerable amount of individual clerical work, tracing the residence and so on of the elector. There is not only the question of getting him registered in the constituency in which he would be entitled to vote in the first instance, but of tracing him on removal if he moves. If the qualifying date is suitably put back—and also for the time being the qualifying period—the clerical work is enormously simplified. I can assure the House that that is so, but if any further detail is required my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be in a position to deal with any points that may be raised. The new scheme is not an ideal one but the Government are satisfied that it provides the only way of enabling by-elections to be fought on an up-to-date register in a short period.
Because the Government and I recognise that the Bill is not ideal, and because we ourselves would have preferred to preserve the modest residential period of two months if we could have done so, I have taken the greatest care to see that the Bill is temporary. There are a number of points which are designed to meet that end. In the first place, the word "temporary" appears in the Title of the Bill. In the second place, there is a mandatory direction to the Secretary of State that as soon as he is satisfied that sufficient staff and facilities are available for the operation of the 1943 Act, he shall make an order bringing the Bill to an end. I can assure the House, not only that there will be no wish on my part to avoid that


obligation, but that the conscientious officers of the Home Office will see to it that I do not avoid the issue even if I wanted to.

Sir Percy Harris: Will my right hon. Friend give an important guarantee, which will expedite the passage of the Bill, that the Bill will not be used for a General Election?

Mr. Morrison: I want to be absolutely honest with the House. I, personally, do not think it will. I do not think it ought to be, unless circumstances should force us, for example, to have a war-time General Election—which Heaven forbid. My own view is that whether a General Election comes during the European war or thereafter, this Bill ought not to be used if it is possible to avoid it, and every effort will be made to that end. The Bill also provides that the Measure shall come to an end on 31st December, 1945, unless a Resolution is passed by each House of Parliament extending the period of the operation. Thus the Bill cannot be extended beyond 31st December, 1945, without the specific and affirmative assent of both Houses of Parliament.
I think, therefore, that I have done everything I can to prevent any misuse of the Bill by the Government or by the Home Secretary for any political or other consideration. It is only because of the urgency of putting the new arrangements into effect for by-elections that the Government have been prepared to suspend, even as a temporary measure, the requirement of the two months' continuous residence. On this there are arguments both ways. Persons who change their residence should be enabled to exercise the vote in the new constituency at a reasonably early date. This is especially important when rapid transfers of the population are taking place, sometimes voluntarily to follow up war work and sometimes by direction of the Ministry of Labour, and so on. On the other hand, I cordially agree that it is in principle and in practice undesirable that persons should vote in constituencies in which they are birds of passage. They ought to have some modest degree of attachment to the soil of the constituency. The Departmental Committee, on which all parties were represented, recommended two months' continuous residence. The Government recognise that this is reasonable and that

a residential qualification should form part of the permanent law.
But the choice now is between temporary suspension of the provisions and indefinite postponement of what all sections of the House desire. To meet legitimate apprehensions on this point the Government have proposed safeguards, including a mandatory onus upon the Home Secretary which will have to be observed. Nothing in the Bill impairs the doctrine that some degree of residence shall be the basis of the electoral qualification, and such disadvantages as attach to suspending the two months' continuous residence requirement are greatly mitigated by the other proposal in the Bill which puts the qualifying date back by one month. Under the 1943 Act the qualifying date is the last day of the month before that in which the election is initiated. Perhaps I may give an illustration to show how this works. If an election is initiated in June, under the existing Act the qualifying date would be 31st May. Under the Bill it would be 30th April, a month before. Persons qualifying to vote would be persons registered in the national register as resident in the constituency on 30th April. The great majority of these will have been resident in the constituency for a long time. Ordinarily, the newcomers will be a small fraction and most of them will be persons intending to reside indefinitely in the constituency. A few of these will be entitled to vote under the new Bill when they would not have been entitled to do so under the Act, but no-one will seriously object to that.
There may also be a small proportion of birds of passage, a species to which in this connection I have already objected and as to whom I think the House will agree with me. It is to exclude these transients that the continuous residential qualification is of value. In fact, by putting back the qualifying date we shall substantially secure the same result. For example, a person going to a constituency for a short visit will not be likely to get his national registration card altered on the highly speculative possibility that he might be able to vote in a by-election in that constituency. If he is registered as resident on the qualifying date he is not likely to be in the constituency on the polling day, which will be more than three months


later. Still he could vote, and this possibility is admittedly a drawback. It is one of the reasons for making the Bill temporary. Putting back the qualifying date also prevents any danger of voters being artificially moved into a constituency for a by-election.
To take as an example an election initiated in June, the authors of the conspiracy would have (a) to know before 3oth April that an election would be initiated in the constituency in June; (b) to arrange for a number of persons to get themselves registered in the national register as resident in the constituency on or before 3oth April; and (c) to arrange that these persons should go to the poll in the constituency when the polling day Occurred in August. I have had a lot of experience of elections, and this would be too troublesome and would not be worth while. On the other hand, some enterprising party with a new technique might of course be able to develop practices which have not occurred up to now to the old-established firms. There are further safeguards. It is an offence already to make any false declaration as to residence, for the purposes of the National Registration Act. Moreover, individuals would be 'put to a good deal of inconvenience, not the least being that their ration books would have to be transferred to the area of their alleged residence; they could survive for only four weeks, as a general rule, on emergency cards. Therefore, the danger of gerrymandering is negligible, I hope, and need not be seriously considered.
I say again that I very much regret having to ask the House to amend this legislation so soon after its passing. We thought we were all right. The registration officers then thought they were all right, but they have been squeezed again and again for man-power. They assure me that the position is not satisfactory now and I feel that I must accept their assurances.

Mr. Bowles: We passed the Act in November, 1943, on the assurances of the registration officers. The right hon. Gentleman has found that they were wrong; is he now satisfied that they are right?

Mr. Morrison: They were perfectly genuine. They are very helpful and cooperative. They thought that with a big

effort they could do the job. The fact is that with every month that goes by there is a tightening up on local government staffs as regards both number and quality, and the position becomes more serious. I cross-examined them, and believe me. I have not taken this matter lightly. I put them through the third degree. We have made every inquiry, in order to get the situation relieved. I can assure my hon. Friend that their case is genuine, and that we have to do something about it.

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: Can the Minister give the House some estimate of when he will be in a position to name the appointed day under the original Act, if the Bill is passed?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, I will give information about that. I quite agree that it is material. My position under the existing legislation is that I cannot give a date. I do not know when the appointed day would be and I could not forecast the date. If the Bill is passed, I hope it will be possible to fix the appointed day for a date about two months after the date on which the Bill becomes law.
I have explained the provisions of the Bill. I would add that I have taken the liberty of asking the House to be good enough not only to give us the Second Reading to-day, but to take the remaining stages to-morrow. If we are to do this, we must work with all speed. We want the electorate to be able to vote as fully as may be in by-elections, even though the results of by-elections have been somewhat varied from time to time. Let as many people vote as may be. In the circumstances, I should be grateful if the House would give me the Second Reading of the Bill as early as possible, and take the remaining stages to-morrow.

Mr. Parker: I should like to say, on behalf of the Labour Party, that we support this small amending Measure. We take the view that the Government have made out their case for the Bill. I think there is general agreement in the country and in the House, that the sooner we get an up-to-date franchise for by-elections the better it will be. At the moment, by-elections have become largely a farce because of the pre-war register. We will support any Measure that will help to secure a better way of consulting the real views of the electorate than that we have


at present. I was very pleased to hear the Home Secretary say that if the Bill were passed, we should be able to have the provisions in operation, in about two months, for any by-election that might then occur. I think hon. Members on all sides of the House will consider that that is not too soon, as the date from which we can have properly fought by-elections. This Parliament is already an old Parliament. Many people think it is out of touch with the electorate. Therefore it is all the more imperative that, when we have refreshment of the House of Commons by new Members coming in, these should be as representative as possible. On those grounds, therefore, we give our general support to the Bill.
It has been suggested in certain quarters of the House that the Bill should be held up because it does not fully amend the Act of 1943 in the way that all Members would desire. The Bill deals with the position of civilians. Many hon. Members have suggested that it should be held up until those Sections of the Act of 1943 dealing with the Service vote can also be dealt with. There is, on the other hand, a strong feeling that it would be a mistake to wait until after the deputation that is to go to the Service Ministers and to the Home Secretary on the question of the Service vote before getting by-elections properly fought. The question of the Service vote should be dealt with as a separate matter and should not be allowed to postpone this Bill. We take the view that it is better to get the Bill through first, and to deal with further amending legislation on the Service vote question afterwards, if necessary. I would like to say, on behalf of my party, that we do not take the view, however, that there should be a long postponement of that matter. The question of getting the Service man on the register is very urgent and must be dealt with by the House——

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that the question of the Service vote is quite outside the scope of the Bill and cannot be discussed now.

Mr. Parker: The only point I wish to make is that we wish the Bill to go forward. We do not wish that it should be postponed in order to deal with the Service question at the same time. We take the view, however, that that matter itself must be dealt with at an early date, and

that it would be a scandal if it were allowed to wait. We hope therefore that the Government will be able to get the Bill through to-morrow, and we shall help them in every way we can to do so.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I join with the hon. Member who has just spoken, in the hope that by-elections may accurately reflect the opinions of the electorate. I do so as one of the newer entrants to the House. I am in favour of providing adequate machinery to enable those resident in a Division to express their vote when the opportunity may arise. I am sorry that, after all our labours last year, we should have to go back and amend the Act in one important respect. I fear two things, one of which is that the Home Secretary's hopes in regard to the adequacy of the amending Measure may prove unfounded. I understand that the assurances given this time last yeas about the other machinery were that that machinery would work perfectly. It seems to me—I do not want to get out of Order —that there are other respects in which the law that we made then will require amendment. That is all I desire to say about that point.
One matter which does trouble me is this. As I understand the situation, there has been no difficulty in the boroughs in operating the existing law. It follows, if the Hill receives its Second Reading, that all the work which has been done up to date in those boroughs will be thrown on one side. I cannot understand why what has been done in the towns should prove impossible in the country. I have done all I can to understand it, and I say straight away that, if I were satisfied of the real difficulty in the country, I should have no hesitation in giving this Bill my unqualified support. As I understand it, under this system a card index or file has to be kept. A suspense file has to be kept, for people who are not put in until two months have elapsed. All that is required is personnel to keep the card index system working. That is fairly simple work. It may take a little time to teach someone how to keep a card index properly, but I should have thought it was not work which was incapable of execution in the county districts. If it is, then we must make the changes which the Home Secretary has put forward.
I regard, and I think hon. Members opposite regard, the preservation of some


residential qualification as a matter of great importance. I deplore the fact that, after one year, we have to come back and remove that qualification. At the same time, if the necessity really exists for this alteration, I think that, subject to one or two minor points, which would be proper for the Committee stage, the Home Secretary has put forward the best alternative proposals. I must say that I listened with the greatest care to his statement in introducing this Bill, and it seemed to me that we were asked to accept, in blind faith, the statement of these individuals that they could not do what is being done without difficulty in the towns—that they could not get the staffs required. If they cannot, I suggest that the Minister of Labour might be of some assistance. Before this Bill receives its Second Reading we should have the details of these difficulties more fully explained.

Sir Percy Harris: After very careful inquiries I shall support this Bill. My right hon. Friend has taken every care to consult experienced men, persons responsible for working the machinery of elections, and in the light of experience, this particular amendment of the law is necessary. I believe I am expressing the feeling of the House when I say that if we let this Bill go quickly through its various remaining stages to-morrow my right hon. Friend should, as a reward, give an undertaking to meet the wishes of the House and to deal with the larger problems, which experience has shown are crying out for solution, particularly those in relation to the Servicemen and the prisoners of war. I think the right hon. Gentleman should in that way reward the House for their good will and readiness to give him support on this Bill.
The other issue to which I wish to refer, I have already raised by intervention. I think the Government ought to make it definitely clear that it is not their intention to use this particular provision for a General Election. It would make a General Election a farce to have a temporary Bill of this kind in operation, and it would, inevitably, discredit the next House of Commons if it was elected on machinery of a kind provided merely to meet an emergency in relation to by-elections. The right hon. Gentleman has

said once that the Bill ought not to be used for a General Election and I hope he will say it twice. Those are my two points. It should be made definitely clear, in the Bill, that the Government are honest in this matter, that it is merely a temporary emergency Bill, and that its passing is not an excuse for avoiding the larger problems of the Service and prisoners of war vote.

Mr. Bellenger: I think the House has to accept a large part of what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told us about the difficulties of staffing among the registration officers, because the Home Secretary is in a better position to know the facts of the case than we are. But I do not think the House should accept without question all that the Home Secretary has been told. It would be as well if the House knew a little, as I am sure some hon. Members do—especially my right hon. Friend—about the machinery that used to operate in peacetime for making up the register, I think it was every six months. When I was a very young man, and presumably requiring work, an emissary from the registration officer asked me, at about the time when the register had to be made up, if I would like to go round ascertaining the names of residents who had been in a particular borough for a certain time.

Mr. Bowles: They asked my great-uncle that. He was 84.

Mr. Bellenger: Possibly that is relevant to what I am about to say. My hon. Friend's great-uncle and myself were, probably, equally inexperienced. We had it in common, that we were not trained staff. The Home Secretary spoke of highly-trained staff being necessary to make up the register. Actually, that is not the case. With all my inexperience, though probably I had agility to run round the houses and find out who 'was living there, which is something that my hon. Friend's great uncle could not have had, I feel sure that I was not fully trained for the work. Nevertheless, I was asked by the registration officer to do it, as were many others in a similar position. I think the gentleman who asked me was the rate collector. He had something to do with it.
My first point then is that I do not believe that the difficulties are really as


great as my right hon. Friend has been made to believe by these local government officers. How is the register being made? He did not tell us that. Is it being done by the town clerk or registration officers in the constituencies alone, unaided? I have an idea it is being done mainly through the national registration officer, who has in his possession an index of the residents in a particular constituency. I am also given to understand that even the food officers have been brought in to assist in this matter. I really think that if a genuine effort is made to compile a register, which I am sure my right hon. Friend desires as much as any of us, on as wide a basis as possible, the difficulties will not be as great as the local government officers represent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), said that it would be undesirable to have this sort of register based on a brief residential qualification in a constituency, for a General Election. But millions of Service voters under the present Bill are registered precisely on those terms. They require to have no residential qualification. All they need to do is to indicate where they lived or where they would have lived, had they not been called up into the Services. I do not think, following his argument, that a register of this sort, so far as civilians are concerned, would be so undesirable. I agree that we want the electors to be related, as closely as possible, by residence to the constituency from which they are going to send a Member to this House. But we are living in war-time. We have to put up with war-time conditions, not only for the duration, I fear, but for some period after the war, including possibly a General Election, which my right hon. Friend says may not occur for 12 months after the cessation of hostilities.

Mr. H. Morrison: I do not think I gave any firm undertaking.

Mr. Bellenger: Possibly I misunderstood my right hon. Friend, but I think he knows that it is the desire of many of his colleagues in the Government that a General Election should not be rushed immediately after hostilities with Germany have ceased. I am inclined to think that such an election as we had in 1918 would be undesirable from the country's point of view.
I thought the Home Secretary would have taken this opportunity, which I believe, Mr. Speaker, you would have permitted him, to say a little upon what is happening about the compilation of the present register and how far they have got with it. Under the original Act the Home Secretary has to make regulations; when he feels that sufficient staff and printing facilities will be available for the publication of the civilian register in the constituencies he should set certain machinery in force. We do not know what has been done and we are vitally interested in knowing. I imagine that some of my hon. Friends will be candidates at the next Election, and that just as it is desirable that the electors should know something about their candidates so candidates ought to know something about the electorate. Otherwise, how can they invite the support of the electorate? If the register is not published in very good time before the Election it will be a haphazard Election.
I urge my right hon. Friend to get the necessary staff, as I believe he can, so that the registers, in so far as they are complete—of course they will not be entirely complete until they are frozen on a certain date—with the Service side as well as the civilian side, can be published in the post offices and candidates or their agents can look at those registers to see whether all the constituents have been registered who they think ought to be registered and the electors themselves can see whether they are actually on the registers. They have no means of finding out at the moment whether they are on the register, and will not have any means of knowing until, all of a sudden, the register is published shortly before the Election, and then it may be too late for them to lodge their appeals and show why they ought to be put on. A citizen ought to be given some indication, by the publication of the registers, incomplete though they may be, whether he has a vote in a constituency at the next Election. I do not wish to oppose this Bill, which is very limited in its extent, but I ask the Home Secretary to be a little more forthcoming. The House is very much interested in this registration of electors and, so far as I have understood his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman has left us considerably in the dark as to how far the register has proceeded on its way to too per cent. perfection.


I do not suppose any register will ever be that, but we are concerned to see that as many people as possible are registered, and at the moment we know very little about it.

Commander King-Hall: Like many other hon. Members who have spoken, I am just a little puzzled to know precisely why this difficulty has arisen. I thought it was common knowledge that the new register is being prepared by using the bottom part of the old food cards, which merely have to be collected and filed in order, and then, as the changes come along—in one country district that I know of they amount to about Too a week—the register is just kept up to date. In this particular district of which I have personal knowledge, there is no suggestion that there has been any difficulty. Still, I feel one must accept the view of the Home Secretary, although I should be interested to hear a few more details about how that difficulty has arisen. If we are told that this is necessary, I certainly support this Bill, but in the couple of minutes during which I propose to detain the House I should like to reinforce the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). This Bill asks us to do certain things to legislation recently passed, because it has been decided that the Act of 1943 will not allow an election to be properly conducted at the present time. I venture to suggest to the Home Secretary that this will not be the only thing which he will have to do to that Act of 1943. I have put down an Amendment in Committee. I rather doubt whether it is in Order. In view of the fact that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw spoke at some length on the subject covered by my Amendment, my hopes are rising that it may probably be held to be in Order, though I see by the look on your face, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that those hopes may be falsified.
The Home Secretary was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) to give one or two additional concessions as a reward for passing this Bill, and I ask him if he will look into this point. Will he consider carefully what will happen under the arrangements which exist under the Act of 1943, for the publication of the register? Undoubtedly he should recognise

that if there was a General Election even after this Bill has been passed after the announcement of the decision to have an election has been made, there will, most certainly, be an interval of a minimum of three weeks and much more likely five weeks, before anyone can get hold of a register. I do not think the public of this country will understand why for five weeks after the announcement has been made of a General Election, no candidate and no elector can find out how the register has been made up. I cannot see why, when this Bill has been passed, and as soon as he gets his appointed day, the right hon. Gentleman should not start publishing the register once a year, as it always has been in the past, and then, when the moment arrives, it may be frozen. It may be ten per cent. wrong, which will depend on the length of the interval, but there will be something for someone to work on, and it will be no more inaccurate than registers have been in the past. There will be uproar if there is an Election and if for five weeks candidates are milling around like tanks with no objective in front of them because they have not got one in the shape of the register.

Sir Richard Acland: I welcome this Bill, even if not wholeheartedly, and I am a little surprised that so much has been said in regret at the reduction of the qualifying period. I should like to say a word or two in favour of reducing this qualifying period in principle, so that we may welcome this Bill a little more enthusiastically than we do at present. I suggest that the whole conception of a qualifying period is a relic of a dead age. During the greater part of the 19th century, those entitled to vote were a very small and very select proportion of the population. Even after the Bill of 1884, I think I am right in saying that only about ten per cent. of the male citizens over 21 had votes. Between 1832 and 1884, the right to vote was a very special privilege given to relatively few citizens, mainly in relation to their ownership of certain property. The number of electors being very much smaller then than it is now, the majorities by which hon. Members were returned to this House were, normally, considerably smaller than present-day majorities. In those days it might have been worth while for some wealthy political gerry-manderer to do precisely what the Home


Secretary has so well described as quite out of the question in these days of large electorates, namely, putting some friends of his into a constituency, and acquiring for them the property qualification which would enable them to vote. Indeed, I believe when the Lancashire cotton industry was interested in repealing the Corn Laws they did attempt something of that kind by setting up a fund to give a voting qualification to people who would, they knew, vote for the Whigs. When that was the basis of the franchise, it was very natural to put in a qualifying period, and a rather long qualifying period, to reduce to a minimum the chance of any gerrymandering.
The other basis for the affection which has been shown for a qualifying period rests upon a totally false view of the British Constitution, a view which treats this House of Commons as though it were something equivalent to the Senate in the United States, where the duty of members is to represent the special interests of the part of the country from which they come. That is supposed to be the duty of an American Senator. The Senator for Ohio represents the special interests of Ohio, and so on. In our case, surely, the matter is entirely different. We are not sent here to represent, at any rate on matters of major policy, the special interests of individual constituencies. Each one of us is not sent here to represent the special interests of his constituency. On the contrary, we are all sent here, the 615 of us, to represent the interests of the entire adult population of our country. If I am right in saying that that is the proper view to take of the British Constitution, and the decision having been taken that there shall be no special qualification for the franchise, but that the whole adult population shall vote, it seems to me that all this affection which is shown for a qualification period is rather misplaced. I cannot understand upon which basic principle it rests.
The important thing to me is that every citizen should have a chance of voting somewhere. In the case of the overwhelming majority of normal citizens, who live in one place and stay there, there will not be any particular difficulty. The only people we are dealing with are those who are constantly moving about the country, or those who happen to have made one of their infrequent moves round about the time of a General Elec-

tion. Why should those people suffer any special difficulty? If there is a man whose life is such that it causes him to be constantly moving around the country, why should he not exercise the vote like any other citizen; and if he is going to vote, surely he should vote in the constituency in which he happens to be at the time of the election and not in the constituency where he was before, say, his last move but two?

Mr. A. Bevan: I should like to point out one situation which might arise. If we are to implement the proposals contained in the White Paper on Employment Policy, we might have half a million people directed into labour camps, in order to keep employment high, and they would be entitled to vote.

Sir R. Acland: I am grateful for that intervention. I am sure that all of us can cast our minds back to the hectic three weeks before we were elected to this House about nine years ago. At that time the qualifying period was something like nine months before the polling day. I am sure all hon. Members will agree that one of the real headaches for a candidate and his agent arose from this purely mechanical problem of removals. The energies of candidates and their agents had to be directed to this perfectly footling mechanical problem, which has nothing to do with the merits of the case. Why should not candidates and agents be free to do their real business of presenting their policy to the electors? During an election under this nine months' qualifying period I think about half their energies are directed to chasing up removals, and what it comes to is that the candidate who happens to have a very good machine for chasing up the removals is at an advantage of anything up to 1,000 votes per election, over those people whose policy may be quite as good, but who have not got the advantage of this purely mechanical assistance.
When this Bill was first introduced and I saw that the qualifying period was reduced to two months, I thought that one of the worst problems of honest, straightforward democracy had been divided by four and a half—the nine months' period having gone down to two months, and the removals, therefore, being two-ninths of what they had usually been. I am delighted to see that under this temporary provision they will be even slightly


smaller, and I cannot understand what is the basic principle on which hon. Members opposite derive this remarkable affection for a qualifying period as such. It seems to me something which impedes those citizens, who happen to have moved just before an election, from using their votes—something which says to them: "You have just come to Cornwall, and you used to live in Sunderland. If you want to vote, go back to Sunderland, where you have already lost the interest of residence, because you have not been in Cornwall long enough to know anything about Cornwall." But we do not vote for Sunderland or Cornwall; we vote for Britain.
Rather inconsistently, and for quite a gratuitous reason, I am glad that other Members of this House do not share my views on this point because I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has given an undertaking which, if I understand it rightly, will mean that it will not be so easy to have an immediate Election when the war is over. In answer, I think, to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir Percy Harris) the Home Secretary pointed out that, in certain circumstances, a wartime Election might be pressed upon us. I still stick to the view that this House of Commons ought to have been renewed years ago, war or no war, but there is one period in which there ought not to be a General Election, and that is in the five or six weeks immediately following the collapse of German resistance in Europe. That will, inevitably, be a period of maximum change, disturbance, excitement and all the rest. I think there is no one who is interested in having an Election at that time except such party managers as conceive that they would get an advantage out of it. Everybody who has studied the end of the last war will agree, I think, that it was a disastrous mistake to hold a General Election one month and three days after the Armistice. I must press the Home Secretary to go a little further, and to say quite definitely that this Bill will not be used in order to get a General Election set in motion, so to speak, a month and three days after the armistice is signed.
If he cannot do that, will he do something less? I would ask him a question which he may, or may not, be able to

answer. He said that if he possibly can, he will gather together the personnel necessary to make sure that the General Election is conducted under the conditions of the unamended Act. It seems to me that he must have in mind some estimate, however provisional, of the length of time that it would take to gather the necessary data. Whether it would be a week, six weeks or nine weeks, he must have some period in his mind. Whatever he has in his mind in this connection ought, I think, to be available to the House and to the country. We ought to have as much knowledge as he has—naturally, we cannot have more —of the sort of time schedule involved, after the collapse of resistance in Europe, for getting together the necessary personnel and the publication of the register—the earliest time at which a General Election can be held—and if he can help us in this, I shall be most grateful.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I shall detain the House only a few moments and I should not have done so at all, but for the remarks with which the hon. Baronet began his speech. It should be made clear from this side of the House, that, not only in this party, but in all parties, there is a genuine attachment to the residence qualification for reasons which appear to me to be good reasons. Speaking for myself and, I believe, for the great majority of hon. Members of this House, I should certainly have voted against the Second Reading of this Bill, had I thought it was intended to disturb the residence qualification for good and all. I accepted this Bill as a necessary evil on the word of the right hon. Gentleman, but if I thought that an attempt were being made to destroy the residence qualification, I should vote against it.
It is no surprise to me that the little Fuehrer of the small party of carpetbaggers should see no advantage in the residence qualification, but in spite of this carpet-baggers party, the people of the country, on the whole, are attached to IL It is true that, on major issues, the electors of a particular constituency vote in the interests of the country rather than in a purely local interest, but that does not mean, for a moment, that they ought to disregard the needs of the particular locality. I expect the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) would be the first to disown any intention of standing for South Kensington.

Mr. A. Bevan: I hope the hon. Member realises what a very unfortunate and unfair attack he is making.

Mr. Hogg: I, for one, am the first to recognise that one of the great advantages of the British Constitution is that it permits persons to stand for a constituency outside the locality of their residence. It is of vital importance to the people of this country that they should treat the personal characteristics of a candidate as something of very great value, and it is because the residence qualification insists that they should do that, that we, on this side of the House, at any rate, attach a great deal of importance to it. The hon. baronet appears to regard the vote as a purely indefeasible right. That it is a right of every adult citizen, I do not dispute, but it is not merely a right. It is also a privilege, and a responsibility, and I can well understand that those who do not desire it to be treated as a privilege and a responsibility, should desire to get rid of the residence qualification.
There is another and practical reason why this qualification should be retained. One of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference was in favour of the assimilation of the local and the Parliamentary franchise. Theoretically, I dare-say, there are arguments against such assimilation, but, practically, it would be of great advantage. Whatever may be the truth about the residence qualification in the Parliamentary franchise, I think there would be a good deal of opposition in the country, if it were desired to abolish it in the local franchise. If it is proposed to go forward with the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference, it becomes extremely important to retain the residence qualification for the Parliamentary franchise. Personally, I should have thought it better to provide the 600 or 1,000 extra personnel required in order to work the existing Act.

Mr. Bellenger: And they would not be wanted permanently either.

Mr. Hogg: I should have thought it better to provide that extra personnel now, than to tamper in this way with the residence qualification and I, personally, regret that the Rules of Order prevent us from saying that we do not propose to see that civilians are better off than Service personnel.

Sir R. Acland: May I ask the hon. Member a question? He has been pretty abusive about me and my party, as he always is. Supposing a bona fide citizen happens to have moved, as I suggested, from Sunderland to Cornwall one week before the General Election is held, is it the wish of the hon. Member opposite to deprive that citizen of a vote unless somebody can afford to pay the fare from Cornwall to Sunderland?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The hon. Baronet's point has gone beyond the limits of a question.

Mr. John Dugdale: I agree entirely with the views of the hon. Member who has just spoken as regards the residence qualification, but I disagree profoundly with the rather unfortunate remarks he has been making about the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland). I agree with him that we do not represent only, as the hon. Baronet says, the whole of Britain, but that each of us represents his own constituency as well, and I think it would be most unfortunate if any other impression got about the hon. Member's constituency.

Sir R. Acland: I did very specially point out that it was on major political matters that we represent the whole of the nation. On minor matters of personal grievances, I made no suggestion that we did not represent the small-scale interests of the individuals who live in our constituencies.

Mr. Dugdale: It would be most unfortunate if we got the system of the party list such as exists on the Continent and such as might exist here, if we had no residential qualification. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I feel in a rather awkward position, getting so many cheers from the Conservative side; and I had better not pursue this matter any further. If I may pour a little oil on troubled waters, I would say that the hon. Baronet was, perhaps, somewhat naive about the danger of a khaki Election. He seemed to think that that was the only great chance which people had of deceiving the British electors. Members opposite know perfectly well how to do it, without having one. Although I would deprecate a khaki Election, I do not think that, even without one, we should be free from the


kind of trap Elections that we have had in the past.
I rose, however, to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on having performed a job of work very efficiently. It may be said that it was a very simple job; but what might he have done? He might first have waited for five or six months. Then he might have sent a questionnaire to a large number of people. He might have called all the local mayors, town councillors, and other prominent people together, and said, "I wish to bring to the notice of all the inhabitants of every part of the country the need for them to register. You will please get out notices, fly-bills, and stickers, and you will stick them all over the town. You will then hope that people will read them; and if they have not read them it will be their own fault. You will follow that up by a sort of Gallup poll, and ask people whether they have registered." He might finally have sat back perfectly satisfied, having achieved 75 per cent. registration. It may be said that nobody would be so foolish as to do that; but another Department, which we are not allowed to refer to to-day, is controlled by a gentleman who has done precisely that. We may congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on having filled his office very much more satisfactorily in this respect than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary, of State for War has filled his.

Mr. A. Bevan: I would like to say a word or two on this Bill, hoping for the unusual event that what is said here will influence Government action. I would not have spoken upon this subject but for one or two observations which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale). I think both misrepresented the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland). The fact is that the division of the country into constituencies is a convenience for the House of Commons, and has, always been constitutionally regarded as such. If one looked back to the ways in which Parliament was elected from time to time, one would find that that principle was insisted upon on many occasions, in very many Statutes. Therefore, my hon.

Friend was correct in stating that the House of Commons does represent the country as a whole, and that the constituency is a geographical convenience; for everybody recognises that a constituent exercises his suffrage, not only by voting at elections, but by continuous contact with the Member who represents the area in which the constituent lives. It is by that contact that he influences the decision of a Member of Parliament, who must think not only of what he has promised his constituents, but of having to return to the same constituents, to justify what he has done. Therefore, it is perfectly right to say that representing a particular constituency is a very healthy thing for a Member of the House of Commons.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich that party lists would be a very bad substitute; but the hon. Member for Oxford, with his usual intemperance, went right beyond that. It is not necessary to have a residential qualification to secure that result, because people normally live for a long time in the same place. We are not a population of vagrants: we are not moving about the country all the time. The vast majority of us live in the same place for a long time; and, therefore, continuous contact between a Member of Parliament and his constituents is preserved by social realities without the need for Statutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple emphasised that point, and I would be very loth to hear any Member on this side of the House express such regard for the residential principle as has been expressed by hon. Members opposite.
I should like to offer an argument in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple. If hon. Members will looks at the proposals of the White Paper on Unemployment Policy—and some such proposals probably will be carried out at some time or another—they will see that large bodies of people will be forcibly removed from their places of residence and put to work somewhere else. Elections can take place when a large part of a constituency is empty—and, indeed, they normally will. The White Paper, and most of the proposals of the Government, insist upon a high mobility of labour. That means that the receipt of many of our social services by the worker is going to be made conditional upon his accepting


directions to other parts of the country, when it suits the Government. So there may be a considerable part of the electorate shifted about. Those people are going to be the most dissatisfied part of the population: so I can quite see why my right hon. Friend does not want to see the residential qualification insisted upon. It is just that section who will be the victims of bureaucratic interference, and of that regimentation against which my hon. Friends opposite have been protesting in the Press and elsewhere. This is the section to whom I want to give the greatest chance of voting. [Interruption.] Yes, if a Labour Government cause conditions which make people dissatisfied, that dissatisfaction should find expression in the election. It is essential that we should arrange our system of election so that no considerable body of citizens is prevented from having a vote at an election.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: My hon. Friend is suggesting that these sections of the population are completely disfranchised; but that is not so. They can still vote in the parts of the country where they are registered.

Sir R. Acland: Only if they are transported back by people who have enough money to do it.

Mr. Bevan: Some of them would be able to go back to vote in their own constituencies—those who could convince rich Conservative candidates that they would vote for them. We have seen that sort of thing in the normal course of elections, when workers who have moved out of the constituency have come to the polls in cars provided by rich candidates. But I want it kept to the smallest possible margin consistent with the machinery of registration, and I am certain that that is the overwhelming desire of the electors of this country.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): May I thank the House for the way in which this Bill has been generally received? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary came to the House, standing, to some extent, in a white sheet, to apologise for the necessity of the Bill, which is to amend legislation recently passed in this House. I think everybody accepts the desirability of the Bill, if the necessity for k is shown. My hon. Friends the Member for Daventry

(Mr. Manningham-Buller), the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), and the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) all, to some extent, doubted the necessity for this Bill. I would point out that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not wish to bring in a Bill of this kind unless he was absolutely satisfied of the necessity for it. It is not a Bill out of which any Minister is going to gain very much kudos. We were attempting, by the Act of last year, to introduce a wholly novel system. We were aiming at having a register for wartime by-elections, which would be kept continuously up to date. There was to be no fixed annual qualifying period, as in the machinery laid down by the Act of 1918: that is to say, residence between two fixed dates in the year; nor, let it be noted, was the qualifying period for elections under the 1943 Act to be the two months preceding the initiation of the election. What we aimed at was a system which would give a qualification to anybody who, at any time, resided for a continuous period of two months in a constituency. That is to say, without any trouble on the part of the elector, he could move from one part of the country to another. He might be resident in Westminster, and he might then move, let us say, to Glasgow, and remain there for six weeks, and then go to Southampton, and reside there for nine weeks. This machine was to pick him up, and register him as an elector, not in Glasgow, because he had not resided there for two months, but at Southampton; and, at the same time, to take his name off the register in Westminster. To provide a machine which would do that automatically, without the need for any action whatever on the part of the elector, was aiming at a very high standard.
We thought that this machine could be worked, even under war-time conditions, but I myself sounded a note of caution in the Debates on the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) moved an Amendment, which would have still further complicated this operation, and, in resisting this Amendment, I observed that we anticipated considerable machinery difficulties in the new system. My anticipations, I regret to say, have been more than fulfilled. After no fewer than three meetings at the Home Office with the Clerks of the Peace, we are absolutely satisfied that this rather


difficult machine cannot be worked at the present time. It is not solely a matter of numbers of personnel; it is a question of having people of sufficient ability and capacity to supervise that personnel if it could be obtained. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw both asked whether it would not be possible to publish a register at some time of the year. They will recall that the Act of 1943 does provided for this matter. Section 12 of that Act provided for two things at two different stages. In the first stage, clearly, it is impossible, owing to shortage of printing facilities in war time, to print lists of electors or registers. In any event, you can publish the register only when the qualifying date has closed. You could not have a register. What you could have would be electors' lists, and these could be published only if sufficient printing facilities were available for doing so.

Mr. Bellenger: Is my right hon. Friend seriously suggesting to the House that there are not enough printing facilities to publish, in each constituency, lists of electors?

Mr. Peake: Most certainly.

Mr. Bellinger: Look at the newspapers. How do they manage?

Commander Sir Archibald Southby (Epsom): Ask Mr. Gollancz.

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend should have raised his point when the 1943 Measure was before the House, because, in Subsection (3) of Section 12, he would have seen:
As soon as the Secretary of State is satisfied that sufficient staff and printing facilities are available for the operation of the following provisions, the electoral registration officer shall provide for the publication in each constituency of a list of persons who appear to be qualified to be registered if an election were initiated on that date.

Commander King-Hall: As I understand my right hon. Friend, when this Bill has been passed, if a by-election takes place, the register will then be printed in that condition. Why cannot the register be printed without a by-election?

Mr. Peake: What would happen at the present time would be this. Supposing

this Bill were in force, and a by-election took place, electors' lists would be published on, I think, the 20th day after the initiation of the election, that is, approximately 33 days before polling day. These lists would be available to the candidates during the period of the by-election, but this Section was put into the 1943 Act because we knew that printing facilities throughout the whole country, for printing registers simultaneously, were not available. As soon as my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this printing operation can be done, then it is provided by the Act of 1943, and by the Regulations made under it, that there shall be an annual publication of electoral lists as they stand in all constituencies, and that, month by month, additions to and deletions from this register shall be published, so that, when this stage is reached, when the printing facilities and staff are available, hon. Members will have their month-tomonth lists of electors registered for every constituency.

Mr. Bellenger: When will that be?

Mr. Peake: Of course, I cannot prophesy when these facilities will be available, but I can give the assurance that the Minister will be most anxious to bring this part of the 1943 Act into force at the earliest possible opportunity. I can anticipate that printing facilities will not be available until the end of the war in Europe, but, of course, it is difficult to give a definite statement upon that point.

Mr. Woods: Would it not be possible to make the lists, as they are completed and while still in typescript, available for inspection at the office?

Mr. Peake: Of course, they will be available in any constituency in which a by-election is taking place, but I cannot undertake at present that complete lists can be made available in every constituency throughout the country.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Would it not be possible, and was it not suggested when the matter was before the Committee, for people interested, like election agents, to have an opportunity of getting in touch with the registration officer and seeing these lists? There would be nothing to prevent that, I take it?

Mr. Peake: The Minister will consider this point, but hon. Members must bear


this in mind. In our constitutional theory, anyone who can get nominated may stand for any constituency in which an election is taking place, and, therefore, it would not be fair or reasonable to supply lists of electors privately to the established political parties and not to other people. There has to be publication of the lists, but the point will be looked into. The hon. Member for Oxford and one or two other hon. Members spoke with interest about the residential qualification as a permanent feature of our system. I entirely agree, and I think it was clear from the Minister's speech that he agrees also.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance, on behalf of the Minister, that this reduction of the residential qualification is purely a temporary war measure, and that the old-time principle of the residential qualification is not being jeopardised?

Mr. Peake: I can give that assurance without any qualification whatever. It is not only a war-time measure, but it will expire at the end of 1945. This Bill is brought in because we see no real or practical alternative. It is intended only to provide for by-elections. As my right hon Friend said in his opening speech, the aim is to secure registers for these by-elections which are reasonably up to date and which give electors a reasonable chance of exercising their franchise. That is the whole object of the Bill. It is a purely temporary Measure, hedged about with all sorts of safeguards, and I think the House would be well advised to accept it.

Mr. Bowles: I wish to make two points. One is on the question of the issue of lists. There are a certain number of constituencies—I think 19—of which one happens to be mine, which are to be redistributed very soon. It is essential to be able to get proper evidence before the Boundary Commission so that agents and others asked to give evidence should at least know the number of people who would have been able to vote in various parts of the constituency. I hope the Minister will consider that matter. I also want to protest, for the second time in this House, against the action of the Executive, in keeping either labour or paper short, which is interfere-

ing with important Parliamentary functions. I spoke three months ago on the refusal of the Treasury, which is responsible for the Stationery Office in the matter, to allow the reprinting of certain copies of hon. Members speeches in this House. The answer then given me was quite unsatisfactory. I think there was a matter of Privilege involved in that case. Hon. Members were entitled to have reprints of their speeches if they so desired, and it was the action of the Executive, in keeping paper and labour short, which resulted in hon. Members being denied facilities, which they have enjoyed ever since HANSARD was taken over and printed by the Stationery Office. In this instance, because of the action of the Minister of Labour, on the one hand, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or the Minister of Supply, whichever is responsible for paper, on the other, these difficulties are being put in our way, We are prevented from doing our Parliamentary duties properly, and I think my right hon. Friend should look into the action, which places hon. Members in this unfortunate position.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow.—[Mr. A. S. L. Young.]

Orders of the Day — LAW OFFICERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
At the moment, I am in an optimistic frame of mind, since I doubt whether the most controversial person could find any matter of controversy at all in the Bill, which I am about to submit to the House. It deals with the possibility of the Solicitor-General acting for the Attorney-General. If hon. Members will look at the Statutes with which the office which I have the honour to hold is involved, they will find, that in all these Acts the provisions which Parliament has made fall into three categories. Parliament has said that either the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General can give consent, Or whatever it may be. It does not matter which. When that has been done, we can arrange the work between us, as


the needs of the moment demand. These Acts this Bill leaves untouched. Then there is a group of provisions which provide that the Attorney-General may act, but make no provision for the office being vacant, or for the Attorney-General being absent or sick. It is provisions of that character which have led to this little Bill being submitted to the House. There is a third class which provides, in differing terms, that, in certain circumstances, the Solicitor-General can act. Some of these provisions only make provision for the office being vacant, but do not make provision for absence or sickness. Others do make provision for absence or sickness.
I hope the House will agree that, in order to avoid delay, it is right and proper that, if either of the offices is vacant, or if the Attorney-General is absent or sick, the Solicitor-General should be able, in all cases, to act for him. That is what this Bill brings about. In many cases, of course, the delay through sickness would not matter appreciably, but delays are always better avoided. If either the prosecution or a person convicted desired to appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal to the House of Lords, they have to get a certificate from the Attorney-General that there is a proper cause for appeal and so on, and that certificate is not often given. If application is made by a man convicted of murder who wishes to appeal, it is, obviously, of very great importance that it should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. A case of that kind did occur when I was out of the country last year, and, on the law as it stands at present, the man had to wait for my return before the matter could be considered. The Solicitor-General refused to act and had he not done so the man could have said, "I have not had my statutory rights, as the Attorney-General himself should consider it."
There are one or two other cases where it is desirable and necessary to act promptly. There is a Section in the Coal Mines Act of 1911 under Which the Attorney-General may take proceedings to restrain the working of a mine where it might be said that the continued working would involve danger, although I have never been asked to take proceedings under this Section. That is a case in

which, obviously, prompt action would be necessary. Although as I have said the trouble has very seldom arisen, looking through the list of powers and having in mind the recent example which I have just given, it seemed to me clearly right that the Solicitor-General should be able to act, in cases where the Attorney-General alone can act at present, if there was a vacancy in that office, sickness or absence. We are taking the occasion also to enable the Attorney-General to authorise the Solicitor-General in a specific case. What I had in mind is that it is conceivable that you might get a case in which the Attorney-General had some personal interest. He might have been briefed on one side before he became a Law Officer or had some personal interest which made it desirable for him to say, "You had better deal with this."
If this Bill is passed, it will prevent certain delays, and my general view about the law's delays, some of which are inevitable, is that I am against them. Therefore, that this Bill may help to minimise them is a good thing. We all know that they manage most things better in Scotland, and I was, therefore, relieved to find, when I had this Bill under contemplation, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, though he had not had any actual trouble, felt that the position would be better if similar provisions were made with regard to Scotland, because there was the possibility of delay and embarrassment there also if there was not a provision of this kind over the whole field. That is Clause 2.
Clause 3 deals with the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, who, when he saw that I was proposing to advance, said that he would like to come in also. His problem is rather a different one. There is no Solicitor-General in Northern Ireland. They have one Law Officer and the original Government of Ireland Act did not make any provision for substitute or deputy. But in 1923 the Northern Ireland Parliament made provision for a deputy to be appointed in the case of a vacancy, or if the Attorney-General was unable to act, but they could not, of course, affect in any way the Imperial Acts which applied to Northern Ireland. Their Act providing for a deputy could only operate on their own Acts, and could not operate on those Acts which deal with matters which are within the com-


petence of this Parliament but are not within the competence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. No inconvenience appears to have been suffered in the intervening 21 years, but as we are now dealing with the Law Officers, we thought we would make a clean sweep of it, and Clause 3 provides that the deputy appointed under the Northern Ireland Act can act within the limits which are laid down, that is, if the Attorney-General is unable to act, in matters which come under Imperial Acts affecting Northern Ireland as well as those which come under Northern Ireland Acts. That explains the Bill, and, as I say, I do not see how anybody could find any controversy in it, and anyhow, I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: When I first read this Bill I wondered why it had taken this form and why it should not have been sufficient to say that the Attorney-General should act, and failing him, the Solicitor-General. But after listening to the explanation which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has given, I can well understand, and I think the House will understand, why it is necessary that the Bill should be expressed in the more elaborate terms which we have before us. I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is not here, because he is to some extent being elevated by this Bill. The office of the Solicitor-General, and indeed the office of my right hon. and learned Friend, were created very nearly 500 years ago, and at that time the Attorney-General was directed to have regard to the common law side of the King's business, while the Solicitor-General was charged with the duty of looking after the Chancery side of the King's work. He has been elevated since those days, because he now looks after the common law side as well. But there is really no reason why, as far as this House is concerned, the Solicitor-General should not, in every sense of the term, be the assistant and the deputy of the Attorney-General.
Again and again, this House has passed Measures which place the duties charged upon the Law Officer in the hands of either the Attorney-General or of the Solicitor-General. That has been done on many occasions and, from my personal knowledge of the Law Officers of the

Crown, and what I know of their history in the past, I can confidently say that holders of the office of Solicitor-General have been chosen and appointed by His Majesty, on every occasion, as potential occupants of the office of Attorney-General. One may wonder from time to time in the course of history as to how some of them obtained the eminence of the appointments which were given to them, but whatever may have been the qualifications, it always has been that the Solicitor-General was one held to be worthy of filling the Attorney-General's office when the occasion should arise. Therefore, it is proper that we should, in this Measure, bring before the House the authority when the occasion properly arises for the Solicitor-General to act in the room of the Attorney-General, and for these reasons I —and I speak for those on these benches as well—welcome this Measure.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes), I welcome this Measure. It is a step which is obviously overdue, though it is amazing to all of us that it has not occurred to the Law Officers in the past to put forward a Measure of this kind. It indicates great longevity or very good health on the part of past holders of the office whoever they may have been. The amount of work which falls on the Law Officers is considerable, and as my hon. and learned Friend has said, in most cases a Solicitor-General is a potential Attorney-General and frequently succeeds to that office when the Attorney-General is elevated, either to another place or to another office. I think that on all sides of the House—this is not a party matter —we should welcome this Measure because it obviously fills a gap and provides for contingencies which the learned Attorney-General said sometimes arise. We want if we can to speed up the law and not to prevent legal redress being duly provided, as it should be.

Mr. Gallacher: A point has been missed out in relation to the conditions under which one or other of the Law Officers should act. I am very pleased to see that the Attorney-General is anxious to get over the law's delays as far as possible. That is desirable, but I was not at all clear about the examples he gave. He said that while he was away a man was found guilty of murder and that the Solicitor-General, if he had


been able to decide on it, would have decided, as he did when he came back, against an appeal. However, he said, the man was satisfied with the due processes of the law.

The Attorney-General: My point was that the Solicitor-General could not, under the Statute as it was then, have given a decision one way or the other.

Mr. Gallacher: But if he could, he would have given the decision, which the Attorney-General later gave, against appeal. I do not think the man would be very satisfied when he was going to be hanged.

Mr. Mathers: He would have welcomed delay.

Mr. Gallacher: He would have welcomed anything. The Attorney-General said you may get a situation where an Attorney-General is prejudiced because of some previous connection with the subject under consideration. What sort of a fix are you going to be in if, not only the Attorney-General, but also the Solicitor-General has had some previous Dissociation with the particular subject under discussion? You will just have to draw lots as to who is to make the decision.

The Attorney-General: We could both resign.

Mr. Gallacher: With regard to the conditions under which the Solicitor-General will act, I will take the position of the Lord Advocate in Scotland as an example. The Lord Advocate is unable to act owing to absence or illness, so the Lord Advocate authorises the Solicitor-General to act in some particular case. Should something not be inserted in the Bill to provide against the Lord Advocate or Attorney-General committing an offence? I took up a paper one day and to my horror I saw that a man had been found guilty of an offence which I had committed. I went to see one of the Law Officers of the Crown when I got down to the House. I showed him the paper and his eyes bulged. I said, "I am afraid I must have committed an offence," and he replied, "For goodness' sake do not say a word to anybody, I have committed an offence myself." Therefore, it is always possible that the Lord Advocate or the Attorney-

General or the Solicitor-General may be liable to offences like this, but a small Bill of this kind is welcome in so far as it is going to end the law's delay.

Mr. Tinker: When I picked up the Bill this morning it took me some time to follow what was actually meant. I was interested to hear the Attorney-General explain its contents. I was always under the impression that when the Attorney-General was absent, the Solicitor-General was looked upon as his "second line" and followed in his foot-Steps, as is the case in the pit with regard to the collier and the drawer. When the first man is not present, the second man does his job. If anyone had said that is not the position, I would have denied it, and would have said that, if one officer was absent, the other could take his place. This is not so.

The Attorney-General: It is so over almost the whole of the field and this Bill makes it so when the Attorney-General is absent or ill, over the limited part of a field not already covered.

Mr. Tinker: I take it that in all cases now, both will be on an equal footing, and if the Attorney-General is not able to be present, then the Solicitor-General will be authorised to take his place. It is rather surprising to me that in all these years this difficulty should not have been brought to light, and the question that arises in my mind is, Has the Solicitor-General ever acted in the place of the Attorney-General? Has this question never arisen, before the case referred to by the Attorney-General? It is an amazing state of things, and very interesting, that for 500 years this flaw has been evident but has not been dealt with before. However, when we do find flaws in our laws it is essential that they should be examined and put right. That is why everybody approves this Bill so that the matter can be put right for the future. No one can take objection to a Bill of this kind; in fact we appreciate the diligence of the Law Officers in bringing it to our notice.

Question, put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Adamson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Adamson.]

Orders of the Day — ROYAL AIR FORCE (PAY AND ALLOWANCES)

Captain Prescott: I wish, if I may, to raise a certain question with regard to Royal Air Force pay and allowances. It is to one aspect in particular to which I wish to draw the attention of the House, and it is a matter which has caused great dissatisfaction and misunderstanding in the Royal Air Force. While I am very glad to see my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Balfour) here, and while I know he will fully appreciate and follow any arguments that are produced to the House on this matter, I cannot help regretting that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air is not here, because this matter has received such great publicity and has caused such dissatisfaction, that possibly words from him would have reverberated perhaps a little further than those of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State.
The House will be fully aware that in April of this year, a White Paper was brought out by the Government with regard to pay and allowances, not only in the Royal Air Force but in the Army and the Navy, and that White Paper was produced as a result of certain pressure from this House. It received considerable publicity in the Press, by radio, and by other means, and indeed it was generally referred to as the White Paper on Increased Pay and Allowances. But in some respects no increase whatsoever was given. Indeed, the White Paper resulted, in certain cases, in a decrease of net pay to certain men, in particular in the Royal Air Force. Therefore it is quite understandable that when the men realised the position they were disconcerted and, indeed, amazed that this decision should have arisen as the result of the White Paper on Pay and Allowances which had been so heralded and from which they expected so much.
I am concerned with one aspect to-day as it concerns the Royal Air Force—the position of the pay and allowances in respect of an airman who is married but whose wife is childless. On this point I addressed a Question to my right hon

Friend the Secretary of State for Air on 24th May. I asked him whether he was aware that
since the recent revision of pay and allowances, an airman who is married and without children and is in the highest paid R.A.F. trade rating (Group 1) has to make a compulsory allotment of 1s. 9d. per day as opposed to is. 6d. per day previously; and whether, as the allowance in respect of the wife has not been increased, he will reduce tha allotment to the previous figure of is. 6d. per day."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1944 Vol. 400, c. 721.]
Now I do not think I need read in full the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air. His answer in effect amounted to this; that the compulsory allotment had been increased for administrative reasons and in order to place the R.A.F. on the same footing as operated in the Army and in the Navy. He pointed out, which was quite true that the joint receipts of such an airman and his wife—the wife having no children —remained exactly the same as before the White Paper on increased pay and allowances had been brought out. Now it is perfectly true that the joint receipts of the airman and the wife remain the same, but the proportion in which they receive those joint moneys is not the same because—if I may give an example—as every hon. Member will know, for a man to enable his wife to receive an allowance, it is necessary for him to make a compulsory allotment. That allotment having been made by the airman, his wife receives the allowance to which she is entitled under the allowance regulations. After this White Paper had been introduced, and was put into force in the Royal Air Force, the compulsory allotment to be paid by an airman for his wife—who had no children—to receive art allowance was increased. Therefore the effect was that the airman himself had less money to spend than he had heretofore, although it was quite true that his wife would receive more money than she had before the introduction of the White Paper, but the increase in the money she received would come from her husband by way of deductions from his pay and not from any increased grant from public funds.
Now quite apart from the necessity of maKing that alteration in order to achieve uniformity between the three Services, the matter to which I wish primarily to direct the attention of the House to-day is the manner in which that new basis of


payment was introduced into the Royal Air Force. Apparently no previous explanation or warning was given to Air Force personnel that at the next pay parade married men whose wives had no children would receive a reduced amount of money because an increased compulsory allotment had been brought into force. From what I gather from my constituents, and other Air Force personnel who have spoken to me, on the pay parade the men lined up for their pay in the usual way. They were paid their money, they looked at it, and for no reason which they could understand they received less than they had received the week before or, indeed, in recent weeks. Quite naturally they asked themselves this question, "The White Paper on increased pay and allowances has just come into operation. We have not got an increase in pay, we have got a decrease in pay, and why is that?" I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that that question was asked very extensively in the Air Force during the months of May and June and it caused some considerable dissatisfaction. I do not wish to exaggerate my case or, indeed, to use any language which is other than restrained. But I must quite forcibly direct the attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend to the very unfortunate manner in which these new pay and allowances were introduced.
The position was, apparently, realised by the Air Ministry because after, I think, the first pay parade, the whole procedure was reversed, and it was decided that Air Force personnel of the category I have mentioned should be paid on the previous rates of pay, and that the compulsory allotment should not be increased as it had been increased on the previous week. That was done, again I understand without the position being fully explained to the men. So again they were bewildered in the next week, although quite pleased, to find that they had more money than they had the previous week. The increased compulsory allotment which the men had paid one week was not paid over to their wives right away and that caused some dissatisfaction. I understand that the whole scheme of increasing the compulsory allotment in these cases was temporarily abandoned and, indeed, it has not yet been brought into effect, the reason being, so I am informed, that it has been neces-

sary to print many new forms or vouchers for the wives of R.A.F. personnel to use.
I must put it to my right hon. and gallant Friend, that if it was necessary that those new forms or documents should be printed, surely it must have been known beforehand. Why should not the introduction of the new system have been deferred until the Air Ministry were properly ready and prepared to put it into full effect without any of this trouble and all these worries and misunderstanding which have arisen? I understand that the new scale to which I have been referring will, in fact, be brought into effect on 1st July. Presumably by that time, the new forms and documents will have been printed, but my purpose in raising this matter to-day is not to create any trouble, especially in times such as these, but to try to ensure, if I can, that personnel of the category I have mentioned in the Royal Air Force, shall really understand the position, and that my right hon. and gallant Friend will make a statement which will receive perhaps some notice in the Air Ministry and among Air Force stations, so that this dissatisfaction, which has largely arisen owing to a misunderstanding, may be dispelled.
I confess that I am not entirely happy that the allowance to a married woman without children has not been increased, and I think there is a considerable case for arguing that an allotment to a wife who has no children should be increased from the present basis. I understand that one argument is that in the case of wives of airmen who have no children they will be doing work of national importance and therefore they do not require an increase in their allowances as in the case with wives who have children and therefore cannot do full-time work of national importance. However, I really cannot think that that is an argument for denying an increase of allowances in cases such as those. You cannot force a woman into a factory to do work of national importance by paying her insufficient money and thereby requiring her to do other work to supplement her income. I put it to my right hon. and gallant Friend that the dependants of all Service personnel are entitled to such allowances as will enable them, irrespective of any effort in another direction, to maintain a proper standard of life. Therefore, I would suggest to him that possibly the allowances that are


paid to childless wives might be reconsidered. However, that is not my prime object in bringing this matter to his notice to-day.
Perhaps I should give some facts and figures with regard to the compulsory allotment which has to be made under the new regulations by an airman to his wife before she can claim an allowance, the wife being childless. As I understand it, the position is this. The men who are affected are men whose basic rate of pay varies between 4s. 9d. and 9s. All those men, when and if the new regulations are again reintroduced, will have to make an increased allotment to their wives—the wives having no children —although the allowance to the wives is in no way increased.
The increased allotment varies from 3d. a day to 9d. a day, or 2s. to 5s. a week. My right hon. and gallant Friend will be well able to understand the concern which arose among personnel when, after the White Paper on increased pay and allowances had been brought out, some received 5s. or 2s. a week less than they received the previous week. That is my case, and I would request that the increase of this compulsory allotment, without any increase in the allowance to the wife, might be reconsidered. Although I appreciate the necessity, from an administrative point of view, of co-ordinating the three Services, and having them on the same basis, I suggest that when you issue a White Paper on increased pay and allowances it is inopportune and ill-advised to reduce your allowances so that the net pay of the man becomes less, and the allowance of the wife becomes slightly more, more because the money has been taken from her husband and not for any other reason. Be that as it may, I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will be able to make a clear statement with regard to this class of case and will be able to dispel the great bewilderment which has existed, and still exists, in the Royal Air Force to-day on this matter.
I have tried to state my case as clearly and as moderately as I can, because I wish to emphasise again this is not the time for exaggerated statements. It may be within the recollection of the House that it was I, together with my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison), who first asked Questions on this subject. These Questions were

taken up in many quarters and eventually the lion. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) gave notice that he would raise the matter on the Adjournment. As the original Question was instigated by me, I requested that I might be allowed to raise the matter on the Adjournment to-day. The hon. Member for Maldon agreed, and I would like to say that I appreciate his courtesy in that respect. I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will deal fully with this matter to-day because it is causing great concern. I hope he will be able to dispel that concern because it is so undesirable and, I am quite sure, if all the facts are known, is so unnecessary.

Mr. Ballenger: Although we all recognise that the Questions my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) put on the particular issue which he has raised to-day were the first Questions in this House on this subject he is not by any means the only. Pioneer——

Captain Prescott: When I said that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) and I first raised this question, I was limiting my observations to the question of the in creased compulsory allotment for wives who were childless.

Mr. Bellenger: We all recognise that, but we know that this particular aspect is but one of a series of anomalies and inequalities—almost say injustices—from which the Air Force alone have not been the chief sufferers. The Air Force personnel before this White Paper, Command 6521, was introduced by the Government, were paying a different rate of allotment towards family allowances from the other two Services and I do not think there should be any distinction between the three Services in these matters. What we ought to work for is equality rather than differentiation, and I do not think the Air Force could have any cause to grumble at being put on the same terms as their larger sister Service, the Army. The way the whole matter was put before the public caused something more than misapprehension. The way in which the Air Force and the public were told what this White Paper meant was almost wilfully misleading. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite has spoken about the rates for childless wives. The Air Force is not alone in that. The differ-


ence between the childless wife and the wife who has a child applies to all three Services. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned this point—I regret I was not in the House for the early part of his speech—but does the House realise that a childless wife is not only a woman who has no children? It means a mother who has had children. If those children have passed school age it means that children's allowances cease and the mother is dubbed "childless."

Captain Prescott: While that is a definite point, I imagine that in the Air Force there would be comparatively few of those cases.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary will attempt to answer this case to-day, because we ought to have the Secretary of State for War here to answer for all three Services. The issue has been raised in relation to the Air Force, but it is an issue which is relevant to all three Services and we ought to have a much more authoritative answer than the one we shall get from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to-day. I want to substantiate the suggestion that there was wilful misrepresentation. If there was not, then the officials of the Service Departments did not know their job, because the public were led to believe that the increase from 25s. to 35s. a week for the private soldier, or lowest paid airman or seaman, would be a 10s. increase all round, whereas nothing of the sort has happened, or is likely to happen, because that 10s. increase from 25s. to 35s. is dependent on the rate of pay the man is drawing.
In the Air Force the majority of men—I think over go per cent.—are on rates of pay of more than 4s. a day. They are tradesmen, quite different horn the Army, and on the average they receive higher rates of pay than men in the Army. What was the rate of allotment that a man in receipt of 4s., or more, a day had to make before the White Paper came out? It was 10s. 6d. a week. He had to make this allotment in order that his wife could get a family allowance. Therefore, if you take more than 90 per cent. of the Air Force on these higher rates of pay the wives of those men were already receiving 32s. a week—21s. 6d. Government allowance and 10s. 6d. maximum allotment—before the Government White Paper came

out to raise this sum to 35s. a week. What most people read in the newspapers, or heard on the wireless, was a misrepresentation by a Government Department, because it is well known that the Press and the B.B.C. are guided by what are known as "hand-outs" from Press officers of Government Departments. What the Press said on this issue was not entirely their own, but was what they were fed with by Government Departments. Therefore, the Air Force have a sense of grievance in that they were led to believe that there would be a substantial rise in family allowance for their wives, if they had children, whereas, in fact, when it came to receiving their own pay, they had to Make a larger allotment. They said, "Is this what the Government mean when they say they are going to give higher family allowances? It is we who are having to contribute to that increase by a higher allotment." That is my first complaint against the Air Force in particular, although it applies to all three Services.
As regards equalising the allotment of all three Services, I wonder that the Air Force have "got away with it" for so long. Where a man gets a substantial rate of pay he has to make a substantial allowance for his wife, and most men do. I have never advocated that we should do away altogether with the qualifying allotment. I have only advocated that the Government should reduce the qualifying allotment and give higher Government allowances. When we argued this case before three members of the War Cabinet who investigated these matters we suggested that the Government allowance should be fixed at a certain sum and that men should add to that allowance a rate of allotment varying with their rates of pay. The Government did not accept that suggestion. They said that wives with children would get only 35s., and that the Government's contribution to that would vary according to the amount of allotment that the man paid. That is unfair, and the Government are laying up a great deal of trouble for themselves in the future. It is often said that when you are giving it is better to give generously, especially at a time like this when in many cases men are giving generously of their lives. It is better to give generously than to have this bargaining, as if it were one merchant selling goods to another who wanted to buy. That is not the way to


treat the Services, and I am surprised at the attitude that the Government have adopted.
The next point I would like to comment upon is the difference the Government make between childless wives and wives with children. I understand the reason at the back of the Government's mind. It was advocated in the informal deputation which met the three members of the War Cabinet. A much greater emphasis was placed on bettering the position of the child than any other dependant. It is true that the Government made a substantial advance in the child's allowance. They raised it from 9s. 6d., 8s. 6d. or 7s. 6d. per week in the case of one, two or three children, to 12s. 6d. a week for each child. I welcomed that, but it should not stop there, with the children. You have to take mothers into account, and the Government did not treat them in the same substantial fashion. When they say that, because a mother has brought up children to the school-leaving age and then ceases to get an allowance because the child is no longer at school, she must be dubbed a "childless" wife, and thus lose part of her own family allowance, I think that is an insult to the women who are bringing up children to be conscripted to fight for their country. I do not think it elevates the position of parenthood to make these invidious distinctions. How far we can persuade the Government to rectify an obvious injustice I do not know.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Was not an undertaKing given at the conference that these anomalies would be considered also?

Mr. Driberg: I think I can answer that point. The Government have said that they are considering the anomalies and will make a new statement shortly, but have refused to meet the Committee of Members of the House. It is hoped that the anomalies which are mentioned to-day will be considered by the Government when they are looking into the matter.

Mr. Bellenger: If that is the case—and I understand that the Under-Secretary assents to the position—I hope that the matters to which we are calling attention will be rectified, and I shall be satisfied if they are, but, failing such an undertaking which I doubt very much the right

hon. and gallant Gentleman will give us, the House must bring pressure to bear on the Government at an early date and force their hand as we forced it before when we compelled the Government to grant the improvements specified in the White Paper.
There is one further point to which I should like to call attention. This affects the R.A.F. as well as the other Services. The hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) has been putting down a series of Questions to the Secretary of State for War asking when the Government are going to make a statement as to 'dependants' allowances.

Mr. Mathers: On a point of Order. The Debate is obviously taking a wider scope than the specific item raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott). Is it within our competence to call for the presence of someone who can speak more widely than the Under-Secretary of State for Air can possibly speak with regard to his own Department?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): Any Debate on the Adjournment can wander on to almost any subject except legislation. Anyone can ask for another Member of the Government to attend, but it is up to the Government to say who they think is the most suitable person to be present.

Captain Prescott: I raised the matter of R.A.F. pay and allowances and I notified my right hon. and gallant Friend of the specific points that I wanted to raise. Therefore, I really do not think that any opprobrium should be put on him.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is coming to a second speech—a defence of the Government after an attack which is going too far.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think any complaint will be made about what I am going to say. Pay and allowances include all allowances, and the dependants' allowance is one of them. If I wished, I could bring into the Debate something which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be justified in saying he would not answer because it is not dealt with by his Department—War Service Grants, which are dealt with by the Minister of Pensions. Because the Service Departments will not recognise their responsi-


bilities, we have set up some elaborate machinery for granting a dole, subject to a means test, which should never be in these times.

Mr. Driberg: The hon. Member would be perfectly in Order.

Mr. Bellenger: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) that I have a pretty shrewd idea what is in Order on the Debate and I am sure that, if I were out of Order, I should be pulled up. Still, I want to focus attention on the point that I am raising in special relation to the Air Ministry. These matters not only affect the Air Ministry but the other Service Departments, and I should be glad if a messenger could be sent to the War Office to ask the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary to come and hear what we are saying about his Department as well as saying it to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
However, to revert to dependants, in the case of many single soldiers and airmen, dependants' allowances are just as important to them as family allowances are to the married men. There are thousands of single men who were helping to maintain a respectable home before they were conscripted. When we take these men, we use the most paltry means not to give them dependants' allowances or to put them in the position of helping their mothers, as they were doing in civil life. We do everything possible to deny those mothers the dependants' allowance by the machinery which we set up, which tends to make them pass through the fine meshed sieve of Assistance Board investigation. The Departments do not carry out the investigation themselves but pass it on to the Assistance Board. I know from my very large correspondence that this is one of the most burning topics for single Service men, and it has not been put right in the White Paper. It has not been tackled. We have been given the assurance that the Government are thinking over these matters, but he who gives quickly gives twice.
Let them give quickly, because we are led to believe by Government speakers that the end of the war with Germany is in sight. I am not going to say whether it is or not, but the Financial Secretary to the War Office

gave a date as to the end of the war, If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, I should be glad if he would tell us. I know that when responsible Ministers make statements like that we must believe that they know a great deal more than we do and, therefore, there is a probability, to put it no higher, of an early ending to the war with Germany. If that is the case, how much more urgent are our demands, because we hope that when that war ends a considerable number will be demobilised, and when they are, there is not the same necessity for these allowances. The necessity is there now and the Government should deal with the problem now.
I think the Government have not been quite as fair as they might have been to their officers, but the other ranks are in greater numbers and, therefore, when we make a case we speak for the majority of the men in the Services. But many of these officers who are drawn from the ranks, and have to serve a period in the ranks before they are given commissions, are not men of the same substance as prevailed in days gone by, when officers were able to buy their commissions. They are in almost as necessitous circumstances as many of the other ranks. The Government have not treated those officers, especially those with families, in too generous a manner.
The War Service Grant is administered by the Minister of Pensions and, therefore, it is not within the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's province to understand the subject, though he should, because it is part and parcel of the pay and allowances of the R.A.F., but one does not expect a reply in detail to the point that I wish to put. The basic level of the War Service Grant was raised, in the White Paper, from 18s. to 22s. a week. The Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association, who act as agents for the Government and who are financed to a certain extent by the Government, have themselves said it is not enough. I do not know whether the Government pay attention to what Members say in the House, but I should think they would pay attention to an Association which has, spread over the country, 20,000 voluntary workers in constant contact with members of the Services and their dependants. This organisation is much larger than the Army Welfare


System. The Army Welfare System has probably about 1,300 local welfare officers. They have county welfare officers and Command welfare officers, two of whom are Members of the House.
The 1,300 local welfare officers of the Army attempt to deal with problems affecting a number of men which we cannot mention even if we know the figure. It is a vast number. The Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families' Association has 20,000, and that is not enough. Therefore I suggest that they have very good evidence to substantiate any statement that they make in this respect, and the statement which they have made is that the Government's advance of the basic minimum of the War Service Grant to 22s. a week for an adult is not enough. I hope the Government will pay regard to responsible Members who have studied the subject and spoken and written on it, and to those other outside organisations which the Services make use of, not only the S.S. & A.F.A., but other voluntary bodies like that, and will be guided by what they all say. If they do not, I think we are right in forming the opinion that the Government are not serious in this matter. It is a very dangerous thing for the Government not to be serious in matters which affect millions of Service men and women and their dependants.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the efforts that are made to keep up the morale of the air crews, and a splendid body of men they are. I can conceive no more important means of affecting the morale of some of these young men, Who have to do their duty under arduous circumstances, than to go off on their job knowing that their dependants, wives, children or mothers, may be suffering in any way at home. I think it is the duty of the House not to see that they get the bare necessities, which is all that the Government's policy has been directed to so far—and in that they have not been very successful—but to pay those men and their dependants generously, if you like, to err on the side of generosity and over-pay them a little. There will not be much danger of that. The country has never done that to Service men and their dependants, and I do not suppose it ever will. To-day we are putting forward a reasonable demand to the Under-Secretary for Air. We ask him not to fob us off with some stalling

answer, but to go straight to the target and give an answer which will mean to us an "O.K."

Mr. Driberg: Both the hon. Members who have spoken were perfectly correct when they said that one of the causes of this trouble was that the matter was not made sufficiently clear in advance. It was not made sufficiently clear in the White Paper itself to start with. Throughout the White Paper, as one of the footnotes remarks, Army ranks are quoted "for the sake of brevity," and it adds:
the increases apply throughout on the same basis to all the Services.
It may be that that footnote refers to one particular appendix, but the implication of this practice of quoting only Army ranks throughout was that it was going to be pretty much the same in all the three Services. There is one passing reference to the fact that there will be some increases in the scales of qualifying allotments in the Royal Air Force, but there is not one word in the whole document to indicate clearly that at the next pay day a large number of men in the Royal Air Force would find that they were drawing less money than they had been drawing before.
The hon. and gallant Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) was correct, too, when he described the dismay that occurred at that next pay parade, when, without any explanation, thousands of men found that they were actually getting less money than they had been having, after all the talk about these new increases in pay and allowances that they had heard. I myself, the day after, happened to meet some of my friends in the Royal Air Force, and they greeted me with black looks and a unanimous query, "Where's our increase?" They went on to say that "it said on the wireless" that there were to be generous increases all round, and they asked, "Where was the mistake? Where was the slip up? What has happened in Parliament?" They were deeply disappointed and dismayed about it.
Then came the postponement of the arrangemen As we have heard, the new scheme, after all, was not to be put into operation for about a month. The pay offices were instructed to revert to the old scales forthwith. When I ventured to suggest at Question Time that


that in itself indicated the unsatisfactory nature of the position, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was quite indignant about it and said that my suggestion was "misleading." Well, I do not think that the Under-Secretary will tell us to-day that they would have made that adjustment anyway and postponed putting the new arrangements into force, even if there had not been all this discontent, misunderstanding, and fuss about it. It seems to me an obvious case of post hoc propter hoc.

Hon. Members: What does that mean?

Mr. Driberg: It means cause and effect. A rather cynical friend of mine suggested to me that the postponement for a month or so had been arranged in the hope that in the course of that month all the fuss about this matter would die down and that the opening of the invasion would take everybody's minds off such trivialities. I naturally repudiated that; it was a most unworthy suggestion, and I am glad to see the Under-Secretary nod his head in confirmation. To my mind, there is nothing to be said for the argument which has been advanced that at a time like this, during the supreme crisis of the war, we should not debate these Service grievances. That is an entirely mistaken idea. It seems to me that it is precisely because the men in the Forces are engaged in the bloodiest battles of the war that we in this House should be particularly alert and anxious to guarantee them the utmost financial security. It is perhaps impertinent to talk about the morale of the troops, which is uniformly magnificent, but if there is anything that can contribute to building up that morale, it is the feeling that if they have some grievance about something that is not quite right, it can be put right by being aired in this House. Conversely, nothing would be more depressing for them than to feel that they are completely gagged and that if they want to have something said on their behalf in criticism of Service arrangements or conditions, nothing can be said about them.
I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Darwen said about childless wives being forced to work in factories. It may be that the man-power situation has been such that the Minister of Labour has been obliged to call up and direct

into war work married women without children. That is quite another point. If it is necessary from the man-power point of view to do that, that is another argument; but these women should not be forced to go to work in a factory through sheer penury. When a Service man who has held a good job in civilian life, which has enabled him to maintain his family in comfort, goes into the Forces, the maintenance of his family must become a charge on the State. The woman should not be forced to work in a factory for that reason. I hope that what has been said to-day will be read and studied and considered seriously, not only by the Under-Secretary who is with us to-day, but by all those in the Service Departments who, we have been told, are now reconsidering these anomalies, and that, when the Government's statement is made, next week or the week after, it will be found to contain a satisfactory solution of these problems.

Mr. Tinker: One feels pleased that this opportunity has presented itself to deal with the question of pay and allowances on a wider scale than would have been possible in the ordinary Adjournment Debate. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said that he did not think the Government were serious in this matter. I do not agree with him. I think that they are serious and that what they want is the pressure of Parliament and public opinion to give them a lead as to what should be done. I always think that the Government answer to the pressure when it becomes powerful enough. We should, therefore, try to tell the Under-Secretary of State for Air how we feel about these matters, which concern not only his Department but all the Services. The problem that concerns me is that of the single man whose parents are fairly well to do, that is to say, their means do not bring them within the possibility of getting assistance from the State. If the son makes an allowance to his parents and their means are above a certain point, they get nothing further from the State. That is bad enough, but it becomes worse when the son loses his life.
The parents naturally think that when their son has given his life for the State the State should give them something by way of monetary assistance, but there are now thousands of cases of parents who are getting nothing. It has been held in this


war that unless the parents can show need the State cannot help them. There are about 24,000 parents who are getting nothing from the State for the loss of their sons because their incomes are above a certain level. They get a letter from the Department consoling them and telling them that there is no pension for the time being until their circumstances reduce them to the point where they can apply. That is causing great concern in the country, and the time has come when Parliament will have to recognise the appeal that is made by these deserving people. I asked the Prime Minister whether, when the Debate takes place, the question of parents' pensions would be one of the matters discussed, and he said that as far as he knew it would be. I gathered from that that this point was being examined by the committee which has been set up to discuss anomalies.
I hope that what I have said will arouse the attention of the powers that be to the crying demand throughout the country for the recognition of parents who have lost their sons. I cannot find any justifiable reason why something should not be done for them. We are not asking very much for them, but a recognition of that kind would go a long way to show that the State appreciates the sacrifices they have made. The suggestion I have made is that an allowance of, say, 10s. a week should be given to parents until such time as they were in need. I have been asked whether I would continue this payment for all time. I suggest that there should be a time limit and that the pension should be paid until the son would have reached 26 had he lived. That is the age at which marriage would normally take place. Some such recognition for parents would go a long way to ease that aching pain which they suffer through their loss of their son. I have a number of cases in my own constituency of working-class parents whose only boy has gone out and given his life. The husband is earning £4 or £5 a week, and because that takes him out of the need class nothing is given for the loss of the son. It is hard to convince these people about the need of the country for their sons when the State gives them nothing for the loss of their sons. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to put before those he represents the feeling of the country that something should be done in this direction.

Mr. John Dugdale: I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State knew, when he woke up this morning, that he was going to have to face this ordeal. All of us are sorry for him and I am sure he knows that we are not blaming him for the things we are talking about. I support the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) in his plea for what is called the childless wife. It is most unfortunate that people should be compelled to go out to work because they have had money taken away from them which they previously had. Whatever powers the Minister of Labour may have and exercise to send people out to work, there should not be additional power by the reduction of money when people's children cease to live at home. I would next raise the anomaly of the widow whose pay is reduced the moment her husband is killed, and that loss of money is added to what she is suffering by her bereavement. This anomaly should be removed, and I hope it will be, when the Government come to consider the matter more fully.
I pass to another case. I have not the figures with me at the moment, because some of us have not come as fully documented as we might have done to this rather sudden Debate. I understand that certain N.C.Os. have a grievance. A man may be a corporal. He makes a compulsory allotment of a certain amount of money to his wife. If he then becomes a sergeant he gets a slight increase in pay, but he has to make a very much bigger compulsory allotment, with the result that the net amount left to him is actually smaller than he had when he was a rank below. That is a curious anomaly which I hope will be dealt with. I do not know whether it applies to all three Services or only to the Army. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) says he thinks it applies in all three. It certainly applies in the Army, to warrant officers and sergeants.
Another point concerns the Minister of Pensions. I am glad to see his Parliamentary Secretary is on the Front Bench. I refer to the matter of dental treatment. I have pursued this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary with a mild degree of success during some months, and he has been most helpful. Dependants of Servicemen are very often in need of dental treatment, but get no allowance


for such treatment unless they can prove that their dental trouble is so bad that it will cause them to go to hospital for some quite different reason. I submit that that is wrong. If they are entitled to treatment for other diseases they should be entitled to treatment for dental ailments, which should be classed as an illness. It is uneconomic to wait until people have to go to hospital for some much more expensive treatment.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has done much to improve conditions. He has tried to bring the worst authorities and districts up to the level of the best authorities and he has brought in various illnesses in connection with childbirth which were not previously there. For example, he has said that where it is considered that a woman who is going to have a child is suffering from bad teeth, she may have the treatment, for the sake of herself and the child. That is only one type of case. Dental treatment should in every case be considered in exactly the same class as any other kind of illness, and the same grant should be made.
I support the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) in his claim for parents' pensions, which many of us have demanded for some considerable time. It is curious that while in every other respect pay and allowances are higher than they were before, in this one respect they are lower. Previously, a parent simply had to be a parent and lose a child, in order to get a pension, whereas now they have to go, to all intents and purposes, before the public assistance authorities.

Captain Prescott: Is it not a fact that, in the last war, Army pensions were granted only on a flat rate without a means test, if the soldier killed had been under the age of 26 when he enlisted and if he was unmarried?

Mr. Bellenger: Might I point out that, in the last war——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): No, the hon. Member has already made a very long speech, and there can be no more pointing out.

Mr. Dugdale: I should like to point out to the hon. and gallant Member who asked the question——

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If you are to prevent one hon. Member from "pointing out," could you not apply the rule universally?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was about to stop the question if it had been too long, but it remained a question up to that point.

Mr. Dugdale: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member will dispute that although a limited number of people were entitled to the pension, it was paid without question, and that the same class of people should be entitled to it to-day. Much has been done to improve allowances. I do not dispute that, or say that £50,000,000 is nothing—even though some of the money may have been taken back with one hand after being given with the other; but most of the £50,000,000 has gone in allowances and very little in pay. We have been told how wonderful it is that soldiers are now getting a payment of 5s. a day. To the best of my knowledge, that applies only to soldiers who have served for four long and weary years, in this country, perhaps then in Africa and finally, maybe, in India. After all that time, a soldier may be entitled to the princely sum of 5s. a day, but it does not apply to most soldiers. Indeed, the general increase throughout the Services, as the result of this White Paper, has been about 3d. That is not a sum of which any Member of Parliament can be very proud. I hope that, as a result of this short and rather sudden Debate, the Government will be moved to do something on more generous lines. I can assure them that their generosity will be appreciated by the troops who are now serving so gallantly overseas.

Mr. McEntee: I will not keep the House for more than a moment——

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Member can keep the House for four hours.

Mr. McEntee: I do not want to do so. I want to make only one point with the Under-Secretary of State for Air in regard to airmen and a complaint that they have made to me. It is unusual for me to get letters of complaint from airmen, soldiers or sailors serving overseas, but I have never had so many complaints about any


one thing as I have had about these imaginary increases. They say: "We thought we were going to get them, but in fact, when we received our pay, we found that we had less than we had before. The wireless and the Press told us that we were to get an increase in pay and allowances. It is true that our wives have received increased allowances, but we are getting less now than we got before the allowances were granted." I do not understand why that should be, but as a considerable number of airmen have written to me about it there must be something in it, and the grievance ought to be redressed as soon as possible. I want to stress that there is serious concern about it in the Air Force.
Another point concerns mothers of young men and women who have lost their lives in the Services. I had a case brought to my notice which I put to the Minister, and I hope it will receive the most serious consideration. A woman wrote to me and said that she had lost her son and had applied for the mother's pension, only to be told that because she was working in a factory she could not get any pension at all, unless her circumstances changed for the worse later, when she could apply again. I made some inquiries in regard to the woman's circumstances. I asked her whether she had any reason which gave her more right to a pension than other people. She replied that her circumstances were rather different from those of other people. "Before my boy joined the Air Force" she said, "he was out of work for a long time. Then he went to work a little time and then he had an illness, for which he was away from work for several weeks. I had no income and I was not working at that time. All I had was the earnings of the boy, or what he got from the Labour Exchange and the Ministry of Health. Because of his illness and the consequences, I ran into debt very heavily. Then my boy was called up and went into the Service. I only had the income that I got from him because he was in the Service. I went to work myself because I was faced with the debt contracted before he went into the Service by reason of his illness and unemployment. Because I went to work to try to meet the liabilities incurred when he was in civil life, I am told. I cannot get anything at all as I am earning a certain amount of money."
More inquiries should be made in regard to such individual cases, and it should be done through the local organisations. In the case of the ordinary Serving man, we take his liabilities into consideration. We find out whether, before he joined up, he was buying a house or had contracted to pay for insurance policies. There should be similar inquiry in the cases of women who are under an obligation to make certain payments, and it should not be laid down that they get no pension at all merely because they are earning a shilling or two over the amount laid down by the Ministry as entitling them to an allowance. I hope that the Services generally will give consideration to that point, and that whoever has to administer it, either the Ministry of Pensions or whoever it may be who is responsible for all three Services in such cases, will grant pension, and that there will not be such rigid adherence to the limit of the money they are earning at the time—that other considerations will be taken into account. With unemployment allowances in normal times there are certain disregards. People may have an income from certain sources but it is disregarded in calculating the amount of the income they have at the time. Their cases are considered in that way, and I think that, in general, cases of the kind I have mentioned should be more generously treated than they are at the present time.

Mr. Hutchinson: I intervene in this Debate only for a few moments to put two points to my right hon. and gallant Friend. The first point is the one which was put a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee). There are in the Royal Air Force a number of corporals and some sergeants whose compulsory allotments have been increased under the White Paper proposals. I agree with my hon. Friend that that has aroused a feeling of resentment among those non-commissioned officers whose compulsory allotments have been affected. I appreciate the reason why the compulsory allotment in these cases has been increased. It is a fact that the corporal in the Royal Air Force was more favourably placed in relation to his compulsory allotment than the corresponding ranks in the Army and, I believe, in the Royal Navy, and it is a fact that the White Paper proposals have brought the ranks concerned in the


Royal Air Force into line with the ranks concerned in the other Services.
I agree that in the case of men who are promoted to the rank of corporal or sergeant in the future, it would be right that their compulsory allotment should be placed upon the same basis as the compulsory allotments of similar ranks in the other Services. But it is not quite fair to those men who have been accustomed to make a compulsory allotment at a certain rate, that, as a condition of receiving the higher family allowances they will now receive under the White Paper, their compulsory allotment should be increased. I would suggest that in the case of these non-commissioned ranks of the Royal Air Force who are affected by this proposal, those who are at present having deducted the lower rate of compulsory allotment should continue to make the same rate of compulsory allotment as they pay at present. It would, I suggest, be fair not to alter the condition of those who are at present receiving the advantage which they undoubtedly do receive under the present arrangements. If my right hon. and gallant Friend feels that he cannot go so far as that I would suggest that those who are at present making the lower scale of allotment, who will be affected by this proposal, should be given the option of remaining upon their present rates of compulsory allotment and their present rates of family allowances; that is to say, if a man elected to do so he should be permitted to go on under the conditions of pay and allowances which he is receiving at present. If he was given that option it might well be that some of the men who are affected would prefer to retain the rates of family allowances and compulsory allotment that were in existence before the White Paper proposals were adopted, rather than be put upon the new rates. It might be some solution of this difficulty if they were given the option of doing so.
The other point I desire to raise concerns the assessment of war service grants. I raise this point because I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions here. It is a point which I have put to him on several previous occasions, and to which I have referred in previous Debates. Hitherto I have not succeeded in persuading my right hon. Friend or the Minister to accept my view. This is a point which

affects those families who are purchasing their house under a building society mortgage. In assessing a war service grant the rent which is paid by the family is one of the principal factors which is taken into consideration. But if the Service family are not tenants but are owner-occupiers, purchasing their houses under a building society mortgage, they, of course, pay no rent. The weekly payments which they make to the building society are dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions in making their assessment in this way. Part of the payments, of course, represent interest on a mortgage debt; the other part of the weekly payments are repayments of instalments of capital. In assessing the war service grant the Ministry allow, as a charge on the family income, that part of the weekly payment which represents the mortgage interest, but do not allow that part which represents a repayment of the mortgage debt. I understand the ground upon which that is justified to be that it is considered that a man ought not to be put in the special position of being assisted to repay a mortgage debt on his house. I would suggest to my right hon. and gallant Friend that that is not a very generous line of approach. In fact the result of what is done is that when the man comes out of the Services he will find that he is four or five years further off the time when he will completely repay the mortgage on his house than he would have been if he had not served.
I suggest to my right hon. and gallant Friend that that is a hardship which these men ought not to be expected to bear. This is not a case where one ought to look with too much particularity at the exact purpose for which the money is paid. It would put the owner-occupier fairly on the same basis as the tenant if the total weekly payments which a family make for their home, whether they are buying it or renting it, should be taken as the basis of the assessment for war service grant. If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to go so far as that I would suggest to him that the same course should be taken in their cases as is taken in the case of the widow. The widow is now, of course, entitled to a rent supplement in respect of a certain part of her rent. Precisely the same position as that which I have just described arises as regards a widow if she is purchasing her house on a building society mortgage. But


what is being done in that case is that the Ministry of Pensions take the Schedule A assessment of the house, they calculate the weekly sum which represents the Schedule A assessment, and they allow the widow that sum as her rent supplement. Therefore, she does get something which represents the weekly cost of the house to her. I would suggest to my right hon. and gallant Friend—no doubt he will not be able to deal fully with this to-day—that the same system should be applied in assessing the war service grants to Service men as in the case of a widow. If that were done it would go some way to meet the injustice which the present system imposes upon these owner-occupiers. I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will be able to give me some encouragement upon these points, or at least say that consideration will be given to them.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I think the Minister will realise by now that the speeches that are being made are speeches that do not concern his Department in particular, but I am quite sure hon. Members are delighted to have the opportunity of bringing forward a number of grievances they have received from their constituents. The point I should like to emphasise to the Minister and to the other Service Ministers is that in all these cases of hardship of dependants—mothers, wives—they have to be supplemented by somebody. In other words, if they do not receive justice in a direct manner, they have to have supplementation from some source or another. I know that a great deal is done by the soldiers' and sailors' help societies and so on, but I think it should be the primary function of this House to see that allowances and allotments are laid down in such a manner as to avoid persons having to make applications to charitable and other organisations, or for that matter even public assistance committees, in order to help out the Service men or Service men's dependants. As a matter of general principle I should like to see the Service Ministers face up to that as one of the significant facts of our experience.
I do not want to repeat what has been said by other hon. Members, but I want the Minister to realise that what has been said can be supplemented in detail by every hon. Member in the House. I raise my voice here in order to indicate that

I feel precisely the same in this regard as the other hon. Members who have spoken. I am delighted at the opportunity given to us by the hon. and gallant Member for Darwen (Captain. Prescott) and the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) in bringing this forward by way of the Motion for the Adjournment to-day.
The special cases cited to me are those of the mother whose son or daughter has been killed in the service of the country. She should receive recognition in a weekly payment for the loss of her son or daughter, regardless of whether he or she was contributing to the household before enlistment. The other is that of the mother whose son is now serving, and who has practically nothing to live on except the allotment. She must seek outside assistance. The allowance in this case should be adequate and based on need. I trust the Service and Pension Ministers will face up to these matters properly.
The general case is the feeling that people were deceived, after the White Paper had received such publicity. It was thought that everyone was to benefit, but it was soon realised that that was not so, that the amount received was really insignificant compared with the statements made by way of broadcasting, and certainly by way of publicity in the Press. I am quite sure that there is a general feeling in the House that that ought to be rectified, that the feeling of deception ought to be allayed as quickly as possible, and that the contents of the White Paper ought to reveal, in substance, what is felt by the people at large. These are the points in my mind as regards that, and I mention them in order that the Minister may realise that there is a very general feeling throughout the country on this matter.

Sir Robert Tasker: I have two short questions to ask my right hon. and gallant Friend. May I call attention to the fact that there is a certain scale of pension for the non-commissioned officers in the Army? My point is that the same scale should be given to men in the Royal Air Force who hold equivalent positions. I understand that in the Royal Air Force, being a new arm, this was somehow overlooked. I am sure my right hon. and gallant Friend will cause that injustice to be repaired. I am not so sure about my second point, but my right hon. and gallant Friend is in a


position to make a pronouncement upon it. It concerns the Air Transport Auxiliary.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): If I might interrupt my hon. Friend, I would like to say that that does not come under the administration of my Department but under the Department of Aircraft Production.

Sir R. Tasker: I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for his explanation, because the difficulty is to know to whom to apply. I thought I might, perhaps, engage his support in seeing that the proper channels are used in order that these men and women who are risking their lives—they seem to be like Mohammed's coffin, somewhere between heaven and earth—whether they are civilians or in the Air Force, get proper compensation. Apparently, there is no one to look after them, and if they are killed, as many of them are while working for the Air Force, there is no compensation, as I understand, from the Government for their relatives.

Mr. Murray: I think it is a privilege to emphasise what has been said on the question raised by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I have always felt a little hurt in regard to this question of pensions where the son has fallen in battle. Many cases have been brought to my notice, and I have put them to the Minister of Pensions. I have been met very courteously by his Department, but very often, I am sorry to say, I have had to listen to the story over and over again that there was no need in the home, and that no pension could be granted. I have a very vivid recollection of a very human story told to me by a man in my own division. His lad, flying in a plane practically across his own homestead, crashed almost on his own doorstep. That man came to me and brought out from his pocket a photograph of a beautiful lad. Both of us could scarcely speak about it, because the story was so touching. This man had a big family of grown-ups, and I have lived long enough to know that it is not all income when you have a big family of adults. There is another side to the balance sheet. Sometimes it is just as well to have a small family as it is to have a family of wage-earners.
That father could not understand, and I do not think there is a parent in this land who can understand, that when a son has made an allotment to the home of 7s. a week and that allotment has been paid while the lad was living and fighting for his country, as soon as he crashes and his life is taken the allotment ceases, and the lad goes out of existence as far as the country is concerned. That lad will never go out of existence so far as his home and his parents are concerned, and you can never convince people that where there has been an allotment made by a son something should not be done for that particular home when he has been killed. The father in this particular case said to me, "If they had only given us something to go to the Post Office for we would have felt at least that there was some acknowledgment for services rendered."
I have noticed that the Minister of Pensions, when he has been questioned on this matter, has always replied in the one way. Possibly it is the only way he can reply under the law as it stands. He has always said that we give more money today by this means than we would give by a flat-rate pension. I am not sure whether he is correct in that, but whether it is correct or not does not alter the fact that you cannot take away the sting of death from a home by treatment as in this case. One could go on reciting other similar cases but, like previous speakers, I do not want to repeat myself. I have cited one case and that is enough to help us to see the need for some alteration in the law whereby it will be possible for the parents of such sons to have some recompense.
I feel that it is unworthy of a rich country like ours to raise the standard rates of pay of everybody and yet give nothing at all in these cases. The lad has given his life, or the girl has given hers, and there is nothing more to be paid. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I am sure is as sympathetic in this matter as we are, to talk this matter over again in his Department and see whether some way cannot be found whereby these particular cases will receive what we consider to be a fair deal, so that men and women who have given their lads will know that some acknowledgment will be given for the life that has been taken.

Mr. Gallacher: I am very pleased, like other Members, that the very earnest and energetic Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) has raised this matter. Let us consider how the matter arose. There was a very animated Debate in this House, which was widely publicised in the Press. The general feeling in this House, and in the country, as a result of that Debate, was that there was going to be an increase in the pay and in the allowances. The Government, sensitive to that feeling, arranged for a number of Members of this. House to meet Ministers and discuss this question. There was a unanimous feeling among the Members who met the Ministers that there should be an increase in the basic pay. There are one or two other Members here who were present at the discussions, and I think they will agree that there was a unanimous feeling that there should be an increase in basic pay. That applies to all the Services and to all grades. I do not know what the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) is muttering about, but I say that there was unanimous feeling.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: The hon. Member must not think that he is the only Member who is allowed to mutter.

Mr. Gallacher: I am quite aware that that is the one thing of which the hon. and gallant Member is capable; but it would be much more interesting to other Members if they knew what he was muttering about.

Sir A. Southby: I was reminding my hon. Friends that what happened in the conference was, by special request, understood to be confidential.

Mr. Gallacher: But, despite the special request, certain Members gave information, which enabled the Beaverbrook and Kemsley Press to publish all that took place in the conference. That knocked the bottom out of the confidential nature of the conference.

Sir A. Southby: It does not mean that. It simply means that the hon. Member is able to make a statement, but other Members are not allowed to answer it.

Mr. Gallacher: Some of us drew attention to the fact that everything the conference had discussed had been published in the Press; and there was no question

about the exact nature of the reports which appeared in the Press. Therefore, it is permissible, surely, to say that the Members were unanimous on the question of increasing basic pay. As a result of that conference, there was increased feeling in the country that there would be an increase in basic pay. Of that, the men in the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force felt certain. But as Member after Member has pointed out, the result was that, instead of there being an increase in basic pay, the men of the Air Force that particular week got a reduction. The Minister says that it was necessary to coordinate the three Forces. It would be easy to co-ordinate the three Forces without making a reduction for the Air Force. The Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) made a very touching appeal to the Government to show generosity. It is very difficult to get the Government to show generosity.
Let me give an illustration. The "Evening Standard" and the Kemsley Press published a report of what took place at the conference and they said that the Communist Member proposed a 12s. 6d. flat rate for the children, but that he fount himself outbid by certain others, who proposed first 15s. and then 20s I said at that time that I would propose 12s. 6d., but that if the Government were generous enough to offer £1 a week to the children I would guarantee not to move to reduce it. I knew that there was not the faintest possibility of the Government facing up to a proposition of £1 a week. The Government were backed by those who had made such opposition to the children of the unemployed getting another shilling. The proposition was made at that conference with the Ministers—this was not unanimous, but it was made —that the compulsory allotment Should be done away with altogether, and that the wives of soldiers, sailors, and airmen should get an allowance from the Government, quite independent of any allotment that might be made by the men. If they had done away with the compulsory allotment that would have brought co-ordination in a much better form than by reducing the amounts received by the men in the Air Force. Even now, the Department that is considering anomalies must take this into account. If they are not prepared to do away with the compulsory allotment, they should reduce it to the absolute minimum. This all-important


question of the airmen who are not married, but who have mothers at home—I have had many such cases brought to me—was raised at the conference, and attention was drawn to the fact——

Captain Cobb: Is it in Order for an hon. Member to disclose to the House what took place at a conference which was supposed to be confidential?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Actually, that is not a matter of Order, but it is going to be very difficult if we have these disclosures, because other Members may choose to reply. Perhaps I might remind hon. Members who are discussing this conference that, if it was understood to be private, it will be very difficult for these conferences in future, if the proceedings are to be disclosed here in Debate.

Mr. Gallather: This is the first time that I have disclosed anything which happened at the conference. The only reason I do it is that everything which happened at the conference was disclosed in the Kemsley and Beaverbrook Press. Not a single word was disclosed in the "Daily Worker." I never divulged a word outside of what happened in the conference, but the Beaverbrook Press, the Kemsley Press, and the Camrose Press had contacts at the conference, and they published everything, exactly. These were not speculations about what might have been said, but everything was published exactly.

Mr. A. Bevan: Did they publish them exactly?

Mr. Gallacher: Yes.

Mr. Bevan: That is unusual.

Mr. Gallacher: I and other Members drew attention to it, and the chairman of the conference deprecated such things. Otherwise, I would not have mentioned it. I will not refer to the conference. I will refer to what has happened in my own experience. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Murray) referred to the case of an airman who was killed, and whose father said, "If only we went to the Post Office each week, we should feel that there was some acknowledgment." Let the Minister try to think what that means. Mothers have come to me about their cases. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) may think

that there is something to laugh about when a Member is talking about mothers who have sons in the Air Force.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The hon. Member is not justified in saying that. It is true that my attention was wandering from what he is saying, and that I listened to something that was said behind me; but I was not laughing at what he was saying, and he has no right to say that.

Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. Member allows his mind to wander in such a way that he makes an obvious facial gesture while a Member is dealing with a particular subject——

Mr. Bartle Bull: Surely it is up to the hon. Member to pin my hon. Friend's mind down.

Captain Cobb: Might I explain to the hon. Member that I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), "What a wonderful thing it would be to have on one's tombstone, I died listening to Willie Gallacher'."

Mr. Gallaeher: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that nothing would please me better than to read it on his tombstone. When an election takes place, I shall see a lot of tombstones representing the hon. and gallant Member and his hon. Friends, and I say the more the merrier, because that will be something really to laugh about, It shows the type of mind with which we have to deal when we are discussing questions that affect very largely the mothers of the working class. The mother has her son taken away and he is killed; she is then asked if he has been contributing to the maintenance of the home. Maybe, she has been sacrificing herself to try to train her son for a profession. Maybe, she has been spending every penny she could get on that lad before he was taken, not getting anything from the lad, but giving everything herself. In another six months, if he had not been taken away, he might have been in a position to make some recompense to the mother for all her sacrifices, but he is taken away and killed, and she gets nothing. Maybe, she has been directed to a job. She gets nothing. What do these mothers say? They say, "They have taken away my son, my son is dead and now I am forgotten." Do hon. Members ever think—does the


Minister ever think—about the thousands of forgotten mothers of this country and about the effect of a contribution from the Exchequer—something from the country? It is not a matter of finance. Maybe, they are not in need of the 10s. It would mean that these mothers, every week, as they went to collect the 10s., or whatever it might be, would have the feeling, "My lad is not forgotten and I am not forgotten." That is the important thing, and it should be taken note of.
In regard to wives without children, this is a question of getting cheap labour. A wife is entitled to so much per week, but if the Minister directs her to a job—we are directing them all to jobs now—the childless mother gets about 12s. or 15s. less than the other. This means that, if she is directed to a job by the Minister of Labour, she is actually taking Its. a week of her pay which ought to be part of her allotment, so that the actual payment she receives for the work she is doing for a Government Department is 12s. less than that of the other girl. That means that there are Departments playing into one another's hands, because they are getting cheap labour in these particular jobs, and I suggest that this idea of treating the wives of the soldiers as cheap labour, and taking 12s. off their allowances because of directing them to do a job, is the sort of scandal that should be ended without hesitation. Every wife should have the right to an allowance in her own behalf without compulsory allotment, and she should have that right whether there are children or not. If it is a question of directing any of these women to work, they should get the same wages as other women, and that in no way should interfere with the allowance which they are receiving. There should be no question of taking res. off their allowance in order to subsidise the wages in the job they are doing. I suggest that these matters should be seriously considered by the Department which is considering anomalies, and that they should try'to get all these questions straightened out and adopt a generous and decent attitude towards the soldier and his dependants.

Mr. Viant: The question which the hon. and gallant Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) has raised regarding the treatment given to members of the R.A.F., is one which I hope the Under-Secretary will appreciate

to the full. I should imagine that there are very few hon. Members in this House who have not received letters of complaint in regard to the manner in which these people feel they were misled in respect of the recent increases. I agree that it should be an easy matter to smooth the differences out, in view of the fact that members of the R.A.F. were hitherto in a rather more favourable position, but I feel that those who are responsible for drawing up these improvements might have given some consideration to the manner in which the position might have been eased by way of gradually making the position of the R.A.F. conform to that of all other Services. I gather that the proposal made by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) may offer some assistance in that regard, and I hope it will receive consideration. It is not that we receive one letter; we have received numerous letters, because so many members of the Services and their wives were misled when the improvements were first announced to this House and reported over the air by the B.B.C. I hope that this matter will receive not only sympathetic consideration, but consideration of a constructive kind whereby the differences might, if not immediately, gradually be alleviated.
The other point, that of the childless wife, is to me a very important one. I recall that soon after these improvements were announced, I received a letter from a wife whose husband was in the Services and who is the mother of three children. The youngest one has just passed the age of 14 and the mother says: "Now I am classed as a childless wife, and I receive an allowance less than that of the mother or wife who happens to be, at the present moment, in the position of having one or two children in the home under 14 years of age." Then she says that her duties in the home are equally as responsible as those of the woman with younger children. She goes on, "Despite the fact that I have reared three children, I am forced now to go out and seek employment." That position ought never to have arisen; it is grossly unfair. Furthermore, this woman had arrived at a stage in her life when probably she was unfit to go out to work. I hope that, as a result of this discussion, points of that kind will be taken into consideration by the members of the Government appointed for the purpose of considering anomalies. There are


a number of anomalies, some of which may not be capable of solution, but an anomaly of the kind that I have mentioned could easily be remedied, and should be on the basis of justice.
The Government have not too good a record on the subject of allowances. It fell to my lot, in February, 194o, to move the first Amendment in Supply dealing with the subject of allowances of those who were in the Services. It was about a quarter to twelve at night when my Amendment was permitted to be moved, and we managed to get 6d. a day from that Debate. We can be grateful that we have moved so far at this stage, but this House has literally had to push the Government in order to get any reform whatever. One would almost be justified in saying that it has been compelled to use dynamite. When one comes to consider the subject of the parents of the men and women in the Services, the record of the Government is far blacker. This subject was raised when the first Conscription Bill was going through this House. I remember raising the position of the apprentice lads whose parents, in many cases, had taken every bit of money they had had in the bank and devoted it to apprenticing them or putting them to learn a profession. Now we find that they have even done that sort of thing in regard to their girls, because the girls are involved as well as the lads. These parents placed the last of their resources behind these boys and girls for the purpose of giving them a training for their future, and now, should those boys and girls be killed, and they apply for a small pension, they are asked to state their means. They have already disposed of their means, but unless they are on the poverty line they can get nothing whatever. That statement is perfectly justified. I wish the conscience of this House was so stirred that it was prepared to force the Government on this issue, as it has forced them on other issues.
I was one of the Members of this House who met a deputation representing parents about a month ago. That deputation stated that large organisations are growing up in every part of the country on the one subject alone of the recognition of the parents whose boys or girls have been lost in war. One of the mothers put it to us in this way, and as only a

mother can. She said: "We may not be in a poverty-stricken condition, we may not be very well-off, but none the less we feel that, having given our lives to the training of these boys and girls, we are justified in asking for some recognition from the Government of the services that we have rendered to the country." It was suggested that the least we could offer them as a recognition of those services was Dos. a week. They want some recognition, and I ask that that shall seriously be considered. I have no desire to see organisations grow up throughout the country for the purpose of forcing the Government on a subject of this kind. I believe that if every hon. Member of this House was asked his views on this subject, he would say immediately, "I agree that there should be some recognition of the services rendered." If the Government gave them 10s. it would not be too much. At least, there would be some sort of appreciation shown to the parents of those boys and girls who have made the supreme sacrifice in this war.

Mr. Bowles: I remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air, a fortnight or three weeks ago, answering questions on complaints about the treatment of the dependants of airmen themselves, indicated that he was of opinion that the White Paper had been accepted by the House after there had been a Debate. I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) will agree that I interjected, "When was the Debate?" and the hon. and gallant Member himself got up and asked that question. That shows that the Secretary of State for Air, and possibly the Air Ministry too, have completely misconceived the attitude of the House as a whole as far as the matter is concerned. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) has done good service to all Servicemen and their dependants in managing to raise this matter to-day. There is only one thing I should like to mention, and, if I may use the fantastic expression of the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull), if I can "pin down the mind" of the Secretary of State for Air to this particular thing, I shall have done something worth while. I have come across eases this week-end in which wives have not yet received even the meagre increases that were mentioned and agreed


to by the Government in the White Paper. Although the White Paper was issued some three or four months ago, I should be very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air give a satisfactory answer, and I feel under an obligation to raise it to-day.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): On 24tn May my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Darwen (Captain Prescot) raised by means of Questions in this House, issues concerning the introduction of new scales of allotment in relation to the increases in pay and allowances in the White Paper and, in particular, with reference to childless wives. I am glad to be able to reply to him on this issue and, I trust, on some of the other issues that have been raised by hon. Members in respect of Royal Air Force pay and allowances. I would say to him at the outset that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air is sorry that he has not been able to be here to listen to this Debate. On the other hand, I am sure he and the House will appreciate that the hazards of our Parliamentary time-table are such that while on the one hand the Debates to-day have finished earlier and so given a good opportunity for hon. Members to raise many issues, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend, with heavy operational commitments in respect to the Royal Air Force, could not have been expected to know that things were going to work out this way.
The Debate has ranged very widely and many issues have been raised, from a question to me as to when the war with Germany will end from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) —a question to which I cannot give him any satisfaction except to say that in my own personal view the enemy is still very powerful and it is going to be a long and arduous task before we have Germany finally beaten. From that it passed quickly from the treatment of dental treatment for pregnant women to questions as to the basic principles of parents' pensions. We dealt quickly with issues which are the responsibility of the War Office and questions such as pensions scales and the principles of pensions which, of course, do not come under the Air Ministry. So I know the House will excuse me, and not expect me to reply

upon matters of such wide scope. Nevertheless, I share with hon. Members as, I trust, a good Parliamentarian, the pleasure at an opportunity having been given to this House to express its view on so many of these large issues. I am quite sure the Ministers of the various Departments, and the Government as a whole, will take note of all that has been said as regards these wide matters which are outside what I can speak about.
I come to the basic question as to why the Royal Air Force had to increase its allotments. Our action in this respect was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, and one or two other hon. Members. I think it is only fair to the House, as it is only fair to my Department, that I should give some explanation as to why we have had to do this and what is the position to-clay. The only respect in which changes in the White Paper affect the Royal Air Force less favourably than they affect the Royal Navy and the Army is that the qualifying allotments of certain airmen have had to be increased. This was foreshadowed. If hon. Members will turn to page 3 of the White Paper, they will see these words are used:
These scales will be on a generally similar basis in all three Services and will result for the most part in a reduction of the present scales, though there will be some increases in the Royal Air Force.
The reason why these increases were necessary was that the qualifying allotments for these airmen were lower than those laid down for soldiers and airmen on similar rates of pay. This again is due to the fact that our system in the Royal Air Force has been that the allotments are based simply on scales of pay, whereas in the other two Services the allotments are based partly on pay and partly on rank.

Mr. Bellenger: Only sergeants.

Captain Balfour: I am coming to that, but in the range where the changes take place—if the hon. Member will allow me to make my points, as I have listened to all he said and I hope I shall give him satisfaction—whereas in the other two Services the allotments are based partly on pay and partly on rank, we have a straight-through scale of allotments based on pay only. Now the variations did not matter much so long as the wives of soldiers and sailors got the full benefit


of the additional allotments paid by their husbands, but the new scheme now introduced is based on the principle of making a wife's total receipts up to a definite minimum amount, and if our qualifying allotments had not been increased the State would have been contributing to the Air Force wives a larger share than it would have been contributing to the wives of soldiers and sailors on the same rates of pay.
Althernatively, the wives of airmen would have had to receive a smaller total allowance than the wives of soldiers and sailors on the same rates of pay. One of two things would happen—either the Air Force would have been paying a lower allotment, the total receipts of the family being the same as in the Army and Navy, therefore the Government giving more in respect of the Royal Air Force, or, alternatively, we kept to our previous allotments, with the same amount given by the State to the Air Force wife as to the Army wife, and the total emoluments of the Air Force wife would be lower. So we had to standardise the allotments as closely as we could. However, the House will appreciate that the change only affects airmen on rates of pay ranging from 4s. 9d. to 8s. a day, and they are as follows. On 4s. 9d. and over but less than 5s. 6d. a day, the old qualifying rate of allotment was is., the new qualifying rate of allotment is 1s. 3d. On 5s. 6d. and over but not exceeding 8s. a day pay, the qualifying old rate of allotment was 1s., the new rate is 1s. 6d.
Even with these increases no airman has to pay a higher allotment than a soldier or sailor on a similar rate of pay. That is a point I would like hon. Members to appreciate—in no case has an airman to pay a higher allotment than a soldier or sailor on a similar rate of pay. Of course, many of these airmen who are now to pay an increased allotment have, in addition to this compulsory allotment, been making voluntary allotments, and it is, of course, open to them to reduce, should they so wish, their voluntary allotments in view of the increase in their compulsory allotments, but I do not think that many of them will do so.

Captain Prescott: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend allow me to interrupt for a moment? He has referred to the basic rates of pay and the allotment which

will have to be made. 1s it not a fact, in addition to those he has mentioned, that previously for a basic rate of pay for 9s. per diem the compulsory allotment was is. 6d. whereas under the new rates it will be 1s. 9d.?

Captain Balfour: No, on a daily rate of pay of 9s. the Royal Air Force compulsory allotment is still is. 6d. a day. I want here, though, to stand in a white sheet as regards my Department in one correction we have had to make and which I have announced in reply to a question from an hon. Member. This is in the graduated scale of allotments as compared with what we first put forward. In this graduated scale we first thought that the increased allotment for airmen in the pay range between 7s. and 8s. a day would have to be is. 9d. instead of is., but this was due to a miscalculation and it was found that an. increase to Is. 6d. would be appropriate. We have made that adjustment. The increase of allotments is only in the range of pay of 4s. 9d. and over, and in no case is there an increase of allotment beyond 6d. a day.
I now come to the question of childless wives. The White Paper stated clearly that there would be no increase in the State contribution to childless wives. It is not for me to argue to-day the Governmental decision on that particular issue. I want to explain the reason why the allotment has been increased for the airman in respect of the childless wife, in the same way as the allotment has been increased in respect of the wife with a child. Again, the change concerns only those within the pay range of 4s. 9d. to 8s. a day and the wives of airmen have had their allowances increased by the amount of the increase in their husbands' qualifying allotment. That is to say there has been no increase in the childless wives' receipts from the Government; the only increase has been in respect of higher compulsory allotment from the airman and consequently the lower amount which the airman receives on pay day. I know, and I admit. it straight away, that there has been some misunderstanding and indignation about this particular action. But I want to put this point to the House, and I hope it will receive a wide measure of publicity: There is real truth in the fact that it is not administratively practicable to work a scheme in which a childless airman pays a smaller


qualifying allotment than the airman with a child. This is the reason: The rate of qualifying allotment is determined by reference to the airman's pay, and his allotment is charged against the airman's pay account by the unit, or base, accounting officer. That officer has no information whatever as to whether the airman has a child and, therefore, could not very well operate a scale of allotment which varied according to whether or not there were children in the family. We had no alternative but to apply the increased qualifying allotment to all married airmen, whether they had children or not, but even with these increases the childless airman and his wife are no worse off than childless sailors and soldiers on similar rates of pay. Any of the childless airmen who were previously making voluntary allotment could recoup themselves by reducing or discontinuing that allotment. I, personally, think that resentment against increased qualifying allotment is a rather academic issue, because family income is looked upon as a joint pool. A wife can send back to her husband, if she wishes, part of her allotment and her husband can reduce his voluntary allotment.
As to the way in which the White Paper was introduced, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Darwen said that the White Paper was announced in such headlines as "Increases of Pay," and my hon. Friend the Member for Basset-law went so far as to say that there was some wilful misrepresentation. I assure the House that this is not so. I think misunderstanding is in some part due to the very heavy pressure there is on such available space as there is in newspapers to-day, compared with what we used to have before the war. Before the war any leading paper would have printed the White Paper in full, and could have had the opportunity of analysing it much more fully. In these days, when we live on headlines, and when somebody says there is an increase here and there, there is liable to be a deduction that it is an all-round increase. There is no ground whatsoever for the suggestion that the changes were announced by the Government in such a way as to justify many of the higher rank and file in believing that the Government were granting an increase to them. The White Paper stated categorically:
His Majesty's Government are satisfied that no general increase of pay is required.

Hon. Members may or may not agree, but at any rate that is a positive and clear statement. The White Paper went on:
Increases will be granted only to non-tradesmen private soldiers.
There is no ground for a charge either of misrepresentation, or that these changes were not announced clearly to anybody who cared to read the White Paper.

Mr. Ballenger: My right hon. and gallant Friend is now attempting to rebut my suggestion that there was wilful misrepresentation and has implied that the Press were responsible for the misunderstanding because they did not read the White Paper properly. Was any information given to the Press by the Press officers of his Department or any other Service Department, to explain what the White Paper really meant?

Captain Balfour: I did not say that it was the fault of the Press; I said that in peace-time the whole White Paper would have been reproduced. I do not know whether we gave any information to the Press or not, but the White Paper was available and, as I have said, in peace-time all of it would have been published and commented on in a much wider way than was possible in present circumstances.

Mr. Driberg: Could not the White Paper itself have been made much clearer if it had not been stated in only Army terms, and could not the matter have been explained to Air Force personnel before the actual changes were made at the pay parades?

Captain Balfour: It is very hard to explain to all personnel in many parts of the world something we are trying to get out in a few hours. Quite rightly, at the request of hon. Members of this House, the Government were trying to introduce these reforms quickly. It may well be that if the same opportunity occurred again we could improve upon our action. I am sure that both the hon. Member and I could improve upon our past actions if we had the chance to do so.

Mr. Driberg: My other question was about the White Paper—that it was in Army terms only.

Captain Balfour: I am not prepared to give a view on that. It is a new point. Unless I read all the White Paper


in relation to the Royal Air Force I would not like to give a view on it, but I hope that to-day's Debate will clear away misunderstanding. As I have said the White Paper made it clear that there was to be no general increase in the higher ranks and said, as regards family allowances:
His Majesty's Government have decided that a substantial improvement should be made in the position of families of those men who are in the lower' ranges of pay,
and added that, the State's contribution would decrease as the man's pay and, consequently, his qualifying allotment increases.
The hon. Members for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) said there had been delay in the actual issue of the increased family allowances. One of the earliest complaints that we received, when the effect of these new R.A.F. allotments was realised, was that, although the increased qualifying allotments, as set out in the way I have given, were being deducted from the airmen's pay as from 4th May, the increased payments to wives would not actually be issued till some weeks later. That was because of administrative difficulties—the calling in of paybooks and re-issuing of them. So, to meet that position, I called one of those "towards midnight" conferences when I realised the effect of these proposals and the misunderstanding which was evidently coming about. I received about a dozen letters from Members on the same day on the same point and when a Minister receives 12 letters on one point on one day he knows there is something in it and it is a matter which must be looked into. I called my officials together and went into the question and that night we did two things. We got authority from the Treasury to defer the increased allotments till the increased allowances of the wives were actually in issue, from 4th May to 5th July, when we anticipated that the last of these pay-books of new allowances would be out. The Government are contributing 3d. to 6d. a day more to the increased family allowances and the airmen concerned are contributing 3d. for 6d. a day less than was provided for in the White Paper. The increased allowances, though issued on a later date, will be paid from the earlier date of 4th May. The number of allowance books issued by 1 p.m. on

26th June was 223,000. The whole issue of nearly 400,000 will be completed at the latest by 1st July. Those wives will get their payment retrospectively to 4th May and meanwhile the men will not have been paying the increased qualifying allotment but from that time they will be so doing.

Mr. Driberg: What about people who get married in that period?

Captain Balfour: If the hon. Member will let me have problems affecting particular men I will give a considered reply, but it is not fair to expect me to give a snap decision on a particular point.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) suggested, firstly, that we should not alter the present position of the lower allotments. Such a suggestion is not practicable because it would mean in effect that the Air Force were getting a higher rate of family allowances than the Army or the Navy. His second suggestion was that those on the lower scale of allotments should be allowed to opt for the future so as to continue paying the lower scale of allotment and receive a lower family allowance. If we allowed that, it would be defeating the object of the Government in producing these measures, which is to give an increased amount to the wives for their family life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) asked first about the Air Transport Auxiliary. That is not within the province of the Air Ministry. It belongs to the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Secondly, he talked about the pension scale for warrant officers. That comes within the province of the Ministry of Pensions. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) said he had some individual cases, and he dealt with complaints from airmen overseas. I hope that what I have said has shown, firstly, that our scale of allowances is now broadly the same as that of the Army and Navy and that in no case does a man in the Air Force pay a greater allotment than a corresponding man in the Army or Navy on the same rate of pay, and secondly, that our rates of family allowance are no worse for the airmen than for the Army.

Mr. Bellenger: Why were they ever fixed lower?

Captain Balfour: Because the basic principle of our allotment is different from that of the Army. Ours is related to pay only and the Army bring in both pay and rank. For instance, one hon. Member mentioned the case of a man who was promoted to sergeant and who would have to pay a higher rate of allotment and would finally have less money. That does not actually apply to the Royal Air Force. The three Services are all broadly equated to-day. The men of the Air Force should feel that any confusion that attended the introduction of these increased scales has been set-off by positive action on our part, firstly in delaying the payment of these allotments until the wife gets the higher amount of family allowance and, secondly, that they are just about the same as in the Army and the Navy. I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for having given me this opportunity Of clearing up these misunderstandings of a very complicated subject which we in the Air Ministry tried to tackle and, though we may have made mistakes here and there, I hope the House will appreciate that they have, at any rate, been the subject of swift action in the endeavour to rectify them.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I wish to deal with one point raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend in his full and, to me, satisfactory reply. I take him up on the point he made that the three Services are broadly equated. I think that is absolutely true, but what I want to suggest is that we are bound to have further increases in pay and allowances during the next few years. More especially is that true since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the brake off the cost of living. It is apparent from what has been said by hon. Members that the House is dissatisfied with the method of introducing the recent increases in allowances. The White Paper was primarily the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War and these other points have emerged since. The suggestion I would like to make is that there should be set up an inter-Departmental committee on the whole question of Service pay and allowances, which should be put under the general supervision of the Lord President of the Council, in order that when any subsequent increases are given the whole thing from the point of view of the three Services should be treated

equally. There should be a considered White Paper brought out representing the points of view of the three different Services and the various scales should be set forth in that White Paper showing how they affect Service personnel in each of the Services. If we created such a committee and allowed the Lord President of the Council, as Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Minister of Defence, to deal with the matter, we should not have these anomalies arising at a late stage when people do not comprehend what the reactions of the increases as applied to one particular Service will be on the other two.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL GOVERNMENT (FUTURE)

Commander King-Hall: I ought to say at the outset that I am raising a subject which is in no way connected with the one we have just been discussing. I am only raising it to-day because I feel deeply on this matter. I have given no notice to the Government of my intention, for a very good reason. There is only one Minister who could give me a satisfactory reply, and he is the Prime Minister, and I certainly do not expect him to be here to deal with the matter. For your encouragement, Sir, and that of any other hon. Members who may think fit to listen to me, I will be brief. I was reading an account of the House the other day and I noticed that one of your distinguished predecessors in one stage in a Debate flung himself back in the Chair, and said in a loud voice, "I can bear this no longer." I will endeavour not to get you into that frame of mind. One likes to have a full House when one makes a speech, not that I should ever aspire to that at the present stage of my political career, but I would remind hon. Members that HANSARD is now read by 5,000 who pay for it. Lest Members should think that that is an encouragement to them to make long speeches, I am bound to say that I think it is rarely necessary for a Member to speak for more than a quarter of an hour and that a speech of more than that time makes dull reading in HANSARD. When one raises within the Rules of Order a matter upon which one feels strongly, one need not apologise for doing one's duty in raising it on the Floor of the House.
The subject to which I desire to draw the attention of the House and about which I hope to arouse discussion in the country is what I call the political implications behind the Government's recent White Paper on Employment Policy. In the three days' Debate we had on that matter, three or four Members cruised up to that delicate matter, had a look at it, and then put their tails between their legs and scuttled off. Nobody tackled it in a definite concrete manner, and none of the Ministers who took part ventured anywere near to what I must suppose to be a forbidden subject. It is necessary that I should quote three remarks on the White Paper. The first is from the Foreword, which says:
The success of the policy outlined in this paper will ultimately depend on the understanding and support of the community as a whole.
The second is in paragraph 16 (b):
The Government if supported by the cooperation of all sections of the Government,
will do certain things. Finally, in the last paragraph but one, we have these words:
The Government of the day must be able to rely on the support and co-operation of the public in applying the principles of an agreed national policy.
If these words mean anything, and if the White Paper is meant to mean anything, they mean that a high degree of national unity—there are other references to the obvious necessity of as much co-operation as possible between capital and labour—is essential to the success of the policy in the White Paper. If the White Paper is not meant to mean anything, as was suggested in the extremely amusing but highly mischievous speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), we need not bother any more about it. I apologise to my hon. Friend for not giving him notice that I was going to say this about his speech, but I did not know that I should get this opportunity. I may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb and say something more about it. It was not only very mischievous, but an inaccurate speech. He had the effrontery to support some criticism of the New Deal in America by saying that after a certain number of years the unemployment figures in America were 7,000,000. He did not mention what the unemployment figure was before the New Deal started, and he did not inform

the House that the Americans themselves never pretended to know what their unemployment figures were. I was in the U.S.A. between the relevant dates. They had no real material for finding out what their figures were. They were guesses to within 2,000,000. To base one's arguments on alleged unemployment figures in America reveals an ignorance of the state of affairs over there.
If the White Paper is not meant to mean anything and is a piece of ballyhoo, we need not concern ourselves with the political implications behind it. But I am sufficiently naive to think that it does mean a great deal, and I believe that many people in this House and a lot of people in the country think that it means a great deal. I find myself in agreement with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who regarded it as a very important State paper. If a serious attempt is made to carry out the policy in the White Paper it will be regarded as one of the great State documents of our- time and possibly a turning point in our history. I fully support the idea that every effort should be made to carry out the policy outlined therein. If that is so, it undoubtedly raises very difficult political problems. It is no good people who support the White Paper trying to close their eyes to the difficulties of the political problems involved. The White Paper is necessarily a compromise. Members of the Labour Party who give it a general blessing would like it to go further in some directions, but some Members of the Conservative Party who give it general support indicate that it goes a little further than they would like it to go in some directions. We have to have a compromise of that kind. To a great many people of this country that seems common sense. They say, of course, that we have to have a compromise, as we had to have in getting the National Government for the conduct of the war.
I put this to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Suppose a state of affairs in which a War Cabinet, which will presumably meet in the morning with a long agenda in front of it, with the war with Japan perhaps still going on and a confused state of affairs in Europe; whilst on the domestic side they will have the beginning of success with the legislation they are going to put through in the next year or two or


during the length of time that is left between now and the Election. They will have a record of achievement starting with the Education Bill, in which nothing could be more remarkable than the co-operation that existed between the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister, so much so that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker), who is the Secretary of the Fabian Society in private life, expressed his alarm and horror at the possible implications of a co-operation of such a fruitful character between people of opposite political parties.
There will be this Cabinet with this series of great problems in front of them. Their achievements will be, we hope, the winning of military victory in Europe and a certain measure of success in their domestic legislation. Can we really imagine a state of affairs in which they will then go out for a General Election, take their hats off the hat pegs in Downing Street and go on to political platforms and start abusing each other, or criticising each other in election speeches? I find it very hard to see how that course of events is going to come about. It would almost appear to be ridiculous, in the eyes of many people.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Is the hon. and gallant Member welcoming the end of party Government and the perpetual rule of the Coalition? In that case, if it means anything, it means the end of Parliament as we have known it in the past. We have had Coalition Governments since 1931, and perpetual compromise, yet here is the hon. and gallant Member welcoming still further compromise. If so, I think it is terrible.

Commander King-Hall: I agree with the hon. Member and I did not expect him to understand anything else. As to his generalisation about the continuation of Coalition Government for another five years after the conclusion of hostilities meaning the end of Parliamentary government, that in my opinion is complete nonsense. If my hon. Friend would take the trouble to read the minutes of evidence given before the Committee which sat in 1931 under the presidency of the present Chancellor of the Duchy to look into the question of Parliamentary procedure, he would see the very interesting questions that were addressed to some witnesses, on these lines: "You are suggesting that

we are now in what is a very temporary period of coalition Government and that it cannot last very long?" One of these witnesses replied that he would make so bold as to say that it would last as long as the lifetime of any man in that room. In 1931 that seemed a rather bold thing to say. Nevertheless, it has lasted for 13 years.
It may be argued by some people that if there had not been a Coalition Government the war would never have started, and that is arguable. I am prepared to say, and I said it in 1937 before I came into this House, that we then had an international crisis of such a character that my great regret has been that it was not possible to bring about a Coalition Government with the Labour Party before 1940. Had we done so in 1937, with the present Prime Minister, we might possibly have averted the war. I do not see that the time has come when we can safely go back to the party dogfights across the Floor of this House.

Mr. Baxter: At what point after the war does the hon. and gallant Member visualise such a peaceful world as will enable us to do without a Coalition?

Commander King-Hall: My hon. Friend seems to want party Government for the sake of party Government, rather than to look at problems in the light of what is in the best interests of the country. I am not prepared to stand up at the present time and profess to be a prophet or to tell my hon. Friend exactly when the state of the world will be such that he can, without risk of injury to the country, indulge himself in political antics for the sake of doing so. I am only prepared to say that, as far as I can foresee, the state of affairs for at least five years from the present day is likely to remain such as to make it desirable to have a Government supported on as wide a platform of political views as is possible.

Mr. Woodburn: There are two questions involved. The first of them is that my hon. and gallant Friend is arguing in favour of a Coalition Government, which is a matter of opinion. But there is also the question of the composition of the Rouse of Commons. Should that be perpetuated, or are the electors to have an opportunity of electing a House of a different composition, if they so desire?

Commander King-Hall: I am coming to that point. I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I am going slightly beyond my time, but I have been interrupted once or twice. I wish to make one or two rather important points before I sit down. One was raised by my hon. Friend who has just spoken and another was raised by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). Of course it can be argued theoretically, and would have been so argued in pre-war days, that if you have a Coalition Government you will not get that strong criticism of the Executive which I believe all hon. Members will agree is an absolute necessity to Parliamentary government in a democracy That is one of the points. I believe it has been proved even during the last two or three hours, that there can be a considerable amount of criticism of the Executive under a Coalition Government, and if British political life develops, as I rather think it will, we shall get better criticism of the Executive. Among other consequences I believe that the status of the back bench Member of the House of Commons will be improved, and that the back bencher will no longer be so dependent upon and perhaps so frightened of the Whips, as one might say, as he has been in the past.
I hope it will not be thought that I want to run away from the political implications, which are very wide and big, if I do not go into this matter at great length to-day. My hon. Friend has just asked me a very reasonable question as to my opinion of the composition of the House of Commons. It is not my business to tell the Government how to run the next General Election, but in case there should be any doubt about it I have a suggestion to offer them. I suggest that

the proper thing is for the Government, at the appropriate moment, to come out with a short programme, say of 10 points, or something of that kind— —

Mr. Baxter: Or 14.

Commander King-Hall: Ten would be quite enough. They could invite electors to return to the House of Commons men and women who broadly supported that point of view. I would have a free choice for electors in the constituencies to choose; possibly a gentleman who had been the Labour candidate and who might now say that he supported the 10 points so far as they went, though he would think they did not go far enough; or an independent candidate who would say that the 10 points were good enough for him; or a Conservative candidate who might say that though the 10 points were ideal we might have to wait a long time before bringing many of them about. I believe that much more attention would then be paid in the constituencies to the character of the candidate, which is a very important point. I have tried to answer the points put by my hon. Friend briefly. If he cares to see me in another place I shall be glad to show him a complete scheme for working an election. I will say in conclusion that that really is the Government's business, but that they will fail in their duty to the country if they do not face the problems which are in front of them. The question is, Are they, or are they not, going to go on as a Government? If there is a cat in the bag, they had better let it out. If there is not one, they had better sit down and have some kittens, because the country wants to know what is going to happen.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.